Talk:Rudolf Steiner/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Horoscope

I have taken the liberty of including Rudolf Steiner's birthdata in this article. I would like to point out that this information is very hard to find, and I was able to get it from a very obscure peice of literature that a friend sent to me, therefore I would be gratefu if people, regardless of their feelings of astrology, would not edit that information out of the article.

It would be really nice if someone who has the time and the sophistication would kindly run his birthdata up on astrological software and include his chart. I am afraid that I have not got the time or the know-how to embark upon such an endeavour. I had an email from adam, perhaps he would be kind enough to do it.

Regards, --TracyRenee 22:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Steiner's Natal Horoscope Data

Rudolf Steiner was born at 10:17 GMT on 27 February 1861 in Kraljevic, Yugoslavia: 45N16, 14E34

Sun 9 Pisces 21

Moon 17 Libra 42

Ascendant 12 Scorpio 33

Mercury 27 Pisces 27

Venus 20 Aquarius 51

Mars 6 Taurus 58

Jupiter 19 Leo 51 Rx

Saturn 5 Virgo 53 Rx

Uranus 8 Gemini 04

28 Pisces 20

Pluto 47 Taurus 07

North Node 20 Capricorn 22 Rx

That's actually Kraljevica, Croatia, 45°16′N 14°34′E --Joy [shallot] 00:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of which, that is a completely different place from this village called Kraljević in Međimurje. *ponder* --Joy [shallot]

Another alternative birth data is: 25 Feb 1861, 11:15 pm, Kraljevica, Croatia. You can see his astro chart in http://www.astrotheme.fr/en/portrait.php?clef=z8f8GypjNn6U&info=true

cut-and-paste?

Parts of this article have a vague feeling of being cut-and-pasted from somewhere: my Google testing finds nothing -- could other people please check?

From reading it, I'd say it was translated from German by the contributer. I'm pretty sure it wasn't copied verbatim from a copyrighted work due to the number of untranslated figures of speech and such. Mkweise 08:39 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

Response from Ed: Which parts seem cut and pasted? Could you be more specific? I can answer, for example, for the section on Steiner as a social activist and a couple of other sections. I wrote them. They are neither cut and pasted, nor translated. - Ed

philosophical community?

Who or what is the philosophical community outside Anthroposophy? Can anyone name names? In my experience the whole philosophical community (such as it is) ignores this stuff studiously.

I am not a philosophy scholar so I cannot really answer, but I can name one name due to being indirectly linked to him by personal connections: Reijo Wilenius, retired professor of philosophy at University of Jyväskylä, is in a sense a Steiner scholar. I suppose you could argue that he is not a valid example since he is also involved in Anthroposophy, though. AJK 19:48, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This whole article is infested with people gleefully grinding axes. Why?

kk

Response from Ed: To say "the whole philosophical community ignores this stuff studiously" would be going a bit too far. To say that most philosophers haven't heard of Steiner just might be accurate. I imagine more Continental philosophers know Steiner than do Anglo-Saxon philosophers. But when Steiner wrote his Philosophy of Freedom, he and his work were fairly well known in the German philosophical world. One doesn't have to search far for evidence to amply verify this.

A brilliant philosophy professor of mine in college told me a bit about Steiner and said The Philosophy of Freedom was 'one of the great books of the 19th century'. This was at Eugene Lang College in NYC about 20 years ago.

The Wikipedia article itself gives a strong example of Steiner's place in the philosophical community, under the "Philosophical Debate" section. There, one can find a quotation from Richard Tarnas that situates Steiner philosophically near the forefront of philosophy's historical development to date. One can obviously disagree with Tarnas' evaluation of Steiner, but Tarnas' book won rave reviews from such people as Joseph Campbell. Steiner is not a nobody in the philosophical world, even if he is not well-known.

Pan-Germanism

Steiner's autobiography expressed his interest and participation, as a young man, in the German cultural and social revivial of the 1880s and later -- called Pan-Germanism. The current Wikipedia article gives information about Steiner's pre-occupation with famous German philosophers, but says nothing about Steiner's participation in Pan-Germanism as such. This seems an oversight, since it may well be that some attitudes and aims in the Pan-Germanic attitude may have influenced his thinking and work.

This article mentions Steiner's brief involvement with Theosophy, a community of thought and aspiration with roots in Russia, New York, India -- but Steiner ultimatelyleft and rejected it. Was there an ethnocentric element in Steiner's perspective and aims? The point would not be to discredit the man but to understand him more fully.

M.C.

Bear in mind though that Pan-Germanism wasn't always what it became under the Nazis though. --MacRusgail 11:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Steiner left Theosophy because Krishnamurti was declared by Theosophical leaders to be the reincarnation of Christ. Steiner disagreed. He thought Christ's incarnation was a one-time event.

Re: Philosophical community

I can't say anything about European philosophical communities, but in America, anyway, I'm pretty sure there are none. I studied philosophy as a graduate student at the University of Montana, and my thesis advisor for a while was Albert Borgmann, a well known Heidegger scholar and philosopher of technology. Together we read some Owen Barfield (an English apologist for Steiner), and I also reported to Borgmann on my reading of Steiner's The Redemption of Thinking. Borgmann was born, raised and educated in Germany, before coming to the States. His one comment about Steiner that I remember was that 'he was a wacky genius.'

I'd say from my own limited reading that the nearest one gets to Steiner in American/English philosophy is in phenomenology, and perhaps deep ecology (which itself has a phenomenological strand), and maybe the philosophy of science.

Birth data

I have corrected Steiner's birth data, first of all, from February 25th to the 27th, and secondly, from Donji Kraljevec to Murakirály. My sources in support of this correction were as follows: 1. Steiner's Autobiography (book); 2. The Rudolf Steiner entry in the Hungarian version of Wikipedia, more specifically the clarification given by one of his students (Mária Göllner), in the second paragraph, set in italics; and 3. The DONJI KRALJEVEC website, second paragraph for the Hungarian name of the village, fourth picture for Steiner and the house he was born in. According to these sources, it is clear that Steiner was born in a place that was part of Hungary at the time, so I think it is prudent to use the official name of the village from that time.

Eurythmy

I decided to add that the Art of Eurythmy is actually only half completed (something that I liked to inform my school doctor when he prescribed extra Eurythmy for me!). Please feel free to edit it if the language isn't suitable, or if you can word it better, but please don't cut it out all together because I think it's an interesting bit of information!

Photograph of Steiner

At one point, this page had a photo of Steiner at the top. Then, over time, there were (one too many, in my opinion) photos of the Goeteanum structure. Now there are none. At the very least, I think the photo of Steiner should be restored - is there a reason it was removed? Seems silly to not have it there. --Apostata 16:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert

There was an inappropriate entry paragraph added by an anonymous user; this now been removed.

How's mentioning Steiner's "temperament"-based psychology "inappropriate"? I'll get back to this as soon as I've registered myself and thus cease to be an "anonymous user". As it is, this article is simply not neutral, and the criticism-section does not fulfill its function, but basically just adds to the praise that dominates the rest. Yes, Steiner *was* a genius, but that doesn't make him any less controversial, and critical voices shouldn't simply be dismissed as "not getting it right".

The addition seems to be limited to a series of opinions. This isn't a chat room, it's an encyclopedia. If you'd like to bring some of these topics in, it is possible to in an informative way. For example:

Information about the temperaments would probably be useful under Waldorf Education, but I would suggest starting with a factual description of Steiner's theories about temperaments and of the ways they are used in Waldorf schools. This should be more specific than 'pupils are treated according to this'...how? in what way? Temperaments are a tiny part of the education; so this should be one section among a number of others dealing with other relevant areas. This kind of treatment provides a balanced presentation, giving an accurate picture of the topic.

Another important theme you mention, the scientific nature of anthroposophy, is dealt with on the anthroposophy page. I would suggest you look at the treatment of this issue there, which has been worked on by various contributers and is probably pretty balanced now. It is also more descriptive than simply expressing unattributed opinions (or statements like 'in my opinion').

Wikipedia has a policy against saying things like 'has received heavy criticism' without attribution; it is necessary to state who criticised him for this (and preferably - but not necessarily - provide a link or reference to where this can be found). It should be an authority on the subject who is being quoted. Hgilbert 21:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Philosophical debate

I have moved the section titled philosophical debate here; it seems a bit academic and inappropriate for a general biography. Anyone want to weigh in on this? Should we have a link to this from the main page? Hgilbert 10:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Travesty

A complete whitewash of Steiner and his ridiculous teachings! Where is anything about Steiner's racist reincarnation ideas (blacks to Asians to Aryans)?!? where is anything about his learning about Atlantis -- and numerous other of his "teachings"-completely through his clairvoyant powers?!? Where is anything about how Steiner advocated high fevers in children, said left handedness was a "karmic weakness," or that breast milk was bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.127.170 (talk • contribs)

If you would like your additions to be kept, then please don't blank sections of text when you type in your edit. Also, sourcing your claims to a verifiable reference would be nice (as would using standard written English). — goethean ॐ 18:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Steiner wrote nearly 40 books and his lectures fill 300+ volumes. This is primarily a biography and overview of his thought. Further sub-articles on themes such as the anthroposophic view of reincarnation (that we reincarnate in every race and historical period to become well-rounded individuals) would be great. Anthroposophic medicine deserves its own complete article. Editors, help!! Hgilbert 18:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

no racism in anthroposophy

An anonymous editor keeps making accusations of racism. For his or her benefit:

The Netherlands Commission that investigated charges that anthroposophy included racist ideas
finds again that any suggestion that racism is an inherent part of Anthroposophy,
or that conceptually 
Steiner helped prepare the way for the holocaust,
has proven to be categorically wrong. As a matter of fact,
the investigation of the Commission shows that, beginning in the year 1900, 
he clearly spoke and wrote against the dangers of anti-Semitism,
including in the periodical of a then existing
German association against anti-Semitism.

Hgilbert 10:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor claims there were passages in Steiners work that were rascist. Encyclopedidic practice is to cite those sections but not to editorialise. If there are critismisms then reference them. Jefffire 12:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

is this also the anthroposphical commission, and you don't even mention it here, that's pretty unconvincing. i don't know if i'd call steiner a racist, but i know that he made pretty racist statements. as aquainted as you seem with anthroposphy as you seem i imagine you know them too. for instance there is a anthroposophical publisher (flensburger hefte) that devoted a whole book to steiner and racism. trueblood 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Anthroposophical commission's conclusions are of no consequence. It would be like asking Christians to testify against Christ. I have added a not-too-damaging quote from Steiner that demonstrates his racist comments for the benefit of readers. If these are unsatisfactory, I have 24 pages of others. --Pete K 00:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Steiner and theosophy

Claiming Steiners visons are true and those of other theosophists are false is not objective. Denunciation of The Mahatma Letters and Annie Besant have therefore been removed.

It is also inacccurate to claim that Besant and Blavatsky saw Krishnamurti as the second coming of "Jesus Christ". Their neo-theosophy differentiates Jesus the man from the cosmic Christ principle (and in a different way than Steiner does) --Vindheim 11:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

First: the Theosophical Society - in fact, Blavatsky herself - admitted that these letters were not magically manifested from the Mahatmas, as had been claimed, but were in fact written by human beings (claimed to have been under the mediumship of or receiving communications from the Master):

In a letter to Frau Gebhard, Madame Blavatsky confessed that, to avoid complicated explanations, she had sometimes treated notes as having come directly from the Master in his own handwriting, when she knew that this was not really the case. Referring to the inadequacy of the chelas who were the real writers of most of the letters, she said that there were passages in some of the letters that were "expressed in such language that it perverted entirely the meaning originally intended". She said that " it is very rarely that Mahatma K.H dictated verbatim, and when He did there remained the few sublime passages... found in Mr. Sinnett's letters from Him " (C. Jinarajadasa, The Early Teachings of the Masters, foreword p.x)

Second: Besant and Leadbeater did in fact claim that Krishnamurti was the second coming of Christ: Mr. Leadbeater did not publicly proclaim these facts. Though he was the first to see and say that Krishnamurti would be the vehicle for the coming of Christ, with the reservation already mentioned ("unless something goes wrong," which I on the spot put down in writing), he left all the proclaiming to Mrs. Besant. see this article written by an acquaintance of Leadbeater's

Hgilbert 13:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the Mahatma Letters, Madame Blavatsky never claimed the mahatmas were anything but human. Anyway, the great controversies over these letters took place more than ten years before Steiner joined the Theosophical Society. They are not relevant to the breach between Steiner and Annie Besant another 13 years on in time.

Concerning the difference between Jesus and the Christ in Leadbeaters neo-theosophy, I got it the wrong way around, but the point remains that for Leadbeater (and, at one remove, for Annie Besant) Jesus and The Christ were different. This distinction remains also in Steiners anthroposophy. Leadbeaters claim was that Krishnamurti was destined to become the vehicle for the Christ. He did not claim that Krishnamurti was a reincarnation of "Jesus Christ".

--Vindheim 20:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The new insertion (or rather assertion) by Hgilbert has no other point than attempting to strengthen the pro-Steiner bias in the whole article. Of course Steiner thought "there were a number of outright falsehoods being promulgated" by his opponents. Many people believe there are "a number of outright falsehoods being promulgated" by Steiner himself. Stating that he did not believe in the thosophical version put forward by Leadbeater and Besant should be enough (many other theosophists also did not accept the Leadbeater version). Strong language is not encyclopaedic. --Vindheim 18:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The strong language began with the assertion (which I believe you added) that Steiner's exclusion of Star of the East members was a breach with the theosophical principle of admitting members from all religions. This glosses over - or distorts - the fact that it had this exclusion had nothing whatever to do with any religious background of the members: Hindus, Buddhists, all were welcome. The exclusion was based upon Steiner's belief - rightly or wrongly - that there were outright falsehoods involved in both the Krishnamurti claims and the Mahatma letters (there was an active controversy over these at the time of the exclusions; see Steiners' lectures at that time to see how important this issue was for him). I propose we take out the discussion of the reasons for this assertion; it is too complex an issue for this overview article and belongs in a discussion of the origins of the Anthroposophical Society or the history of the Theosophical Society. (Otherwise a balanced presentation belongs in, not just one aspect.) I will provisionally attempt this excision, with the proviso that some material might find its way to another, more appropriate place through either of our efforts (or someone else's).

Of course excluding members of "the Star in the East" was excluding adherents of a particular religious faith. Personally I believe it was necessary for Steiner to take this action, but his faith is no more Truthful from an encyclopaedic viewpoint, than that of this opponents. --Vindheim 20:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Theosophy

He was a theosophist, why are you reverting ? Wjhonson 16:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, he wasn't; he never joined the Theosophical Society, though he led a branch of their work, and his group broke away completely in 1912. I don't think the theosophists consider him one of theirs (see this list of famous theosophists or this one here, and he didn't consider himself one of theirs...Hgilbert 16:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That is false. He did join, he led the German section. He wrote many letters to Besant. I don't know where you're getting this from but he is named in several Theosophical documents. Wjhonson 16:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It was only *later* that he rejected Theosophy, after Krishnamurti was proclaimed to be the awaited vehicle. His own letters state that. He led the German TS from 1902 to 1912. Ten years of being at the head of the entire German section of many people, isn't the same as "he never joined".Wjhonson 16:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Weird as it sounds, he led them but never joined them.Hgilbert 16:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some other web links for you to peruse

• link 1
• link 2
• link 3
• link 4

I would say that Steiner is closely related enoiugh to Theosophy for the template to be included. On thre other hand, Wjhonson, you chose an extremely poor location in the article to place the template. — goethean ॐ 16:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust it :) Wjhonson 16:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way you should view those "lists" with scepticism. I just looked at the first one. What a hoot! Doesn't even name Krishnamurti for one thing. I mean really. He was the focal point of the entire movement. Wjhonson 16:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't name him for good reason. He was only associated with the theosophists as a child, by their choice not his, and rejected the movement's pretensions as soon as he was an adult. He is a similar case to Steiner: belongs to the history of the movement but was never a theosophist.Hgilbert 17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Read his biography, its linked. He was found at the age of 14, and rejected them when he was in his thirties. Not as "soon as he was an adult". Wjhonson 17:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, OK. Nevertheless, to call Krishnamurti a theosophist is to do great injustice to his whole life, and especially his emphatic rejection of the theosophists.Hgilbert 17:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a historian. I'm not that interested in how people tried to spin their lives *later*, but rather in how their lives played out in-context. And Krishna was about as deep into Theosophy as a person can get. To not call him a Theosophist would be to do an injustice to truth :) Wjhonson 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Steiner's autobiography (chapters 31-33) and letters make it clear that he regarded Theosophy solely as a forum, a group that might listen to his spiritual ideas, not a group that he belonged to in any sense (and he mentions explicitly that he never joined -see this reference or this one or this one). He informed Besant that he'd be going his own way, and teaching his own insights, not those of the rest of the Theosophical movement, from the very beginning - there were extreme tensions because of this.

It's a peculiar situation, and he certainly belongs to the history of the Theosophical Society. Perhaps you could find a citation to support your contention that he was a theosophist.Hgilbert 16:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Given his explicit rejection of Theosophy (see chapters 31-33 of his autobiography), it seems clearly untrue to label him as a theosoph-ist. An -ist is a follower of a movement; he never followed theosophy. In addition, his philosophy diverged widely from theirs, sometimes extremely, and the template makes it appear that he worked within their ideas.Hgilbert 17:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the exact situation (my translation from the definitive Steiner biography, by Lindenberg):

“Marie von Sivers asked Steiner why he didn’t join the Theosophical Society, and he answered that there were more significant spiritual influences than oriental mysticism….Steiner evidently avoided requesting membership in the Theosophical Society, and made the condition that he would be released from all membership contributions. ‘Then I was sent a complementary “diploma” from England and became at the same time General Secretary of the German Theosophical Society.’…Steiner’s membership “diploma” bears the date Jan. 17, 1902.”

So he was formally a member, but did not regard himself as one and refused to be treated as one. In addition, as he joined he was already making it clear that he would not follow the direction of their movement.Hgilbert 17:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So he joined. That's what your quote says. What he thought about it is irrelevant. Everyone else thought he was a member. Wjhonson 17:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to read it more closely. He did not join. He was granted honorary membership. That's quite a distinction. Hgilbert 18:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So if he said "I don't believe I'm a German and I don't want to be treated as a German" then suddenly he's not a German for the encyclopaedia ? That makes no sense. What a person thinks about the facts of their life, doesn't change those facts. Wjhonson 17:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The quoted passage needs to be added to the article. — goethean ॐ 17:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between being a member of a society and being an -ist. The latter implies belief (you can be a Communist without joining the Communist Party, and be a Communist Party member without being a communist...for example, you could be a U.S. spy). Can you comprehend the distinction?

The template is totally out of place; it refers to a complex of people and beliefs that were totally foreign to Steiner's world-view and philosophy, and against whom and which he fought for years.Hgilbert 17:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree, you should add the quote, plus even your comment about it to the article to make your argument clear, since this is an area with conflicting claims. I don't understand your problem with the language. The Theosophist template is a template for all people who were connected to the movement. "Ist" or not. And he wasn't just a *theosophy* teacher with a small 't', he was a member of The Theosophical Society. So that's why the use of the template. And whether he fought them "for years" as you claim, bears no point on whether he was a member for years as well. Wjhonson 17:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Theosophist template makes sense to display if this has some relation to the article. It simply doesn't here. The information it displays it irrelevant and misleading in this context. If someone wants information about theosophy, they can click on a normal link.

I can live with the category tag following your justifications above; this is more plausibly for all people connected to the movement. The template has to go.Hgilbert 17:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If Kandinsky was a member of the Theosophical society - as he may have been - does it make sense to include the template in the article about him? It only makes sense if the content it displays relates to the person. It clearly does not for Steiner.Hgilbert 18:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed. Steiner wasn't just some Theosophist, he was the *head* of the German TS. That is, he was the head, of many German lodges, across the entire country. Not just a few diletantes meeting in a tavern once a week. Not every Theosophist needs the template I agree, but the major players should. And for Germany, Steiner was *the* major player, of all time. There is no German Theosophist who you could say was ever higher in the system than he was. Can you name any? Wjhonson 18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there were diverse groups claiming to be the German Theosophical Society at the time, so there were many (at least 4-5) people who were the head of "the" German T.S.

I wonder what the template adds to the article? Can you answer that?

By the way, this section you just added needs a citation and quote marks. It appears to be excised from a published work. You can quote it but you should cite it properly. Wjhonson 18:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The section is my own text. Why does it appear to have been excised from a published work? I have found a supporting source for it, however, and added more material (Switzerland) found there.Hgilbert 19:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The facts you cite are not first-hand knowledge. And if they were they wouldn't be appropriate for wikipedia anyway. You should add citations as to *where* you got this information from. That would be both helpful and more standard since you've added such a large set of new statements. Even if you read it in five sources and re-edited it, you still have statements of fact that need citations to back them up. Don't you agree ? Wjhonson 20:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Entirely, which is why they are all sourced. What in the world are you referring to?

To be absolutely clear, the first paragraph of the section on the split from Theosophy is an extended passage excerpted and quoted (as marked) from Lindenberg (as cited). The second paragraph is in my own words, and I have cited Lindenberg as one source backing it up (there are many others possible, but he was at hand). What's the problem?Hgilbert 22:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Theosophy box relates exclusively to one section of this article, and there chiefly as a demonstration of what was being dismissed. It really should go; this is not an article about theosophy.

To illustrate: should the article on Jesus have a Judaism box? He was a member of the Jewish faith for thirty-three years and never rejected it, while Steiner was a member of the Theosophical Society for only ten and even during that time rejected it.Hgilbert 11:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if there's a Jewish template, then Jesus' article should certainly have that template. Steiner wasn't just some, on-the-sidelines, Theosophist. He was, *the* Theosophist responsible for the creation of the German TS. Prior to his involvement there *was* no German TS, just a few scattered groups like the Berlin TS. And he was the head of the German ES as well. In short he was the most influential and highly placed German in the entire TS. I mentioned this before and you had no rejoinder to my most salient point :) Wjhonson 19:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

He was the leader of the German society, as you say. The article explains exactly why this does not mean he was a theosophist; he took the job saying that he would not teach theosophy, but his own, Western approach. He left the job ten years later saying the same thing.

Look. Steiner also was:

• A teacher for a Marxist/Leninist school for about the same period of time.
• A leader of a Freemason esoteric group and a high degree mason for about the same period of time.
• A Catholic for his whole life (formally: he was baptised and never left the faith).

and probably numerous other things. We don't need to put templates in for everything a person was ever associated with, even if it was at a high level. The information it offers is essentially irrelevant to the article, and even misleading; certainly contrary to the sense of the text, which is emphasizing how much he did not relate to all that the template offers.

So, other than the fact that it is arbitrary (out of all his associations), misleading (in that it indicates that the information offered relates to Steiner's philosophical direction), irrelevant (in that the information does not relate to said direction) and contrary to the sense of the text, I suppose I don't have a lot to say right now against it. Perhaps those are weighty enough arguments.Hgilbert 20:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

First it wasn't a "job" it was membership in a voluntary organization. He wasn't paid, except perhaps speaking fees, I'm not sure on that. But he didn't draw a regular salary in any case.

Second he wasn't the *leader* of *all German Catholics*. However he was the leader of all German Theosophists. Quite a bit different wouldn't you say?

Third it doesn't indicate his philosophy one bit. The template only says that he was involved in, and a significant figure in Theosophy of this period. Which he was. And that's all the template says, not all this other stuff you're trying to add to show how it's irrelevant. It isn't irrelevant, it's spot-on. Wjhonson 21:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, he did get paid for speaking fees. He was offered membership because they wanted him to lecture and couldn't have him do it otherwise; this is clear from his whole attitude and the whole honorary membership business. He wasn't the leader of all German theosophists; there were 4-5 squabbling groups when he began. His group, which was explicitly not based upon theosophy, grew far bigger than the others, but didn't start out that way. Thirdly, the article, not the template, says that he was involved in and a significant figure in Theosophy. In other words, if that's what you want it to do, it's superfluous; the article does it better.

Templates such as this are used for pages within a category: all Christian denominations have a common page. Theosophy and anthroposophy could be better regarded as similar to Protestant and Catholic...in fact, Martin Luther is a good parallel. It would be inappropriate to put a Catholic template on his page even though he was an extremely prominent leader of the Catholic church in Germany for some time. Can you not see that what someone has grown out of is not what he is? For Steiner, it is even less appropriate because he demonstrably never was a convinced theosophist.

Please, let this go; I'm tiring of saying the same thing in different words and not being heard. (And yes, I hear you clearly, and have supported having the article clearly explain his relationship to theosophy, which is what you are saying it needs to show.) I'm happy to compromise by leaving in the category, which is vaguely relevant perhaps, but the template is simply not. Hgilbert 21:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. You keep acting like if a person is a Theosophist (or was) that they can't be anything else. That's just not true. A person can have five different templates if they're appropriate. Would you say that he should *not* have an Anthrosophy template because he only became one for the last half of his life? Would you turn around and say a person like Krishamurti should also not have the Theosophy template because he, at the age of about 30+ denied them what they most wanted ? So from that point on, I suppose you could say he wasn't a "Theosophist" anymore per your theory of what templates are for. If you look at all the other Theosophists, they all have the template, even the ones who were relatively minor. But you want Steiner to be the exception for some bizarre reason. Wjhonson 06:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a challenging idea, perhaps, but I'll reiterate it: Steiner was not a Theosophist. He was an honorary member of the Society, the founding leader of the German Section for 10 years, and yet he was not a follower of the movement, which is what "Theosophist" implies. Perhaps that requires a little thinking outside of the box to comprehend, but if you look at his whole relationship to the society it is very, very clear. I don't have much more to say about it and need to go on to other things...we're going in circles... Hgilbert 07:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering Steiner a Theosophist is similar to saying that Jesus was a Baptist just because he was baptised by St. John. Steiner never was a Theosophist, and he made this clear many times. Aquirata 09:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Baptists did not exist in 30 AD however. And Jesus wasn't proclaimed the head of the Baptists of Palestine or Israel. So your analogy is quite flawed. Steiner was a Theosophist and this was made clear many times. Not only was he *a* Theosophist, he was the *number one* Theosophist in all of Germany. Contrary to an above assertion, after the formation of the German TS there was no other conflicting TS in Germany whatsoever. All smaller groups were folded into the one German TS and ES. Wjhonson 20:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at this from a different viewpoint. What does the template actually add to the article? Some names: Blavatsky, Judge, Olcott. What was the relationship of Steiner's work to the work of these people? Very little (he mentions Blavatsky sometimes, and his early root races theory may have a connection to her writings). It mentions theosophists; again, the work was totally divergent. It mentions the Theosophical Society in various places; his society went its own way without connections to the other societies, except for the 10 years. It mentions various Theosophical works; again, none of these really relates to Steiner's work or to Anthroposophy. It is not primarily adding related information, normally the intention of such a linked grouping, but rather very distant material. Whereas the many people who continued his work or did connect to it directly - Steffen, Stein, Kolisko, Marie Steiner, Morgenstern, Hauschka, and hundreds more are not listed. Eurythmy, anthroposophical architecture and medicine, biodynamic farming -- these would be the primary links. It gives the illusion that the most important links are the ones it shows, but they are not. What the article perhaps needs is a Template Anthroposophy. I am willing to create one but may not be able to get to it for 2 weeks (I am away right now).Hgilbert 00:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

But I am not and never have been talking about his "work" or his "writings". This is not a page for the "Work of Steiner" or the "Writings of Steiner" but rather a page about Steiner. And about Steiner, he was still the number one Theosophist in all of Germany. So far your argument is not very persuasive for a biographical article. Perhaps its persuasive is this article was *solely* about his philosophy I can't speak to that issue. I'm only speaking to the *biographical* aspects of the article. Wjhonson 21:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

edit wars

This article has been extremely Steinerfriendly, so I am not surprised that antisteiner editing turns up. However wikipedia should be unbiased as far as possible, and therefore should present both pro-steiner and anti-steiner arguments in a balanced way. Some of the recent antisteiner stuff is heavily unbalanced. The previous steinerfriendly information, was at least based on knowledge of steiner and the steinermovement, and not only on hostile selections of misunderstood details. --Vindheim 13:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

White wash?

Anonymous alledges a white wash in this article. Please contribute comments here. Please verify anything that you want to go into the article. If there is sufficient evidence then the NPOV tag would need to be put back up. Jefffire 14:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Jaffire -- It is a whitewash. I just added a number of Steiners works to the site. Strangely, there were only a few or Steiner's works mentioned and they had none of the stuff that thousands of Waldorf schools and Anthroposophists use everyday. I went to a major a Waldorf site and put in all of Steiner's work they linked to. Considering Waldorf schools are Steiner's most prominent contribution to the English-speaking world, I thought it would be a fair place to start to let people read for themselves about Steiner. Scroll down through the titles, follow a few links and read a little, and you tell me if what is written about Steiner in this page even reflects what STEINER wrote about himself and his anthroposophy. (This anonymous comment was added by User:69.129.127.170

The following works by Steiner were already listed before this anonymous user made this comment: Truth and Science (doctoral thesis) Philosophy of Freedom (1894) Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World-Conception (1886) How to Know Higher Worlds (1904-5) Theosophy (1904) The Education of the Child (1907) An Outline of Esoteric Science (1913) Four Mystery Dramas - The Soul's Awakening (1913) Study of Man (1918) Practical Advice To Teachers (1919) Toward Social Renewal (1919) Man as Symphony of the Creative Word (1923) Anthroposophy and the Inner Life (1924) An Autobiography (1924-5)

These are considered his major works. The complete works include 350 volumes; not all can be included. This is carping to say that this is not a fair selection; it has aspects of all of his work included.Hgilbert 09:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Um... none of his clearly Christian titles are mentioned here. How about adding "Christianity as Mystical Fact", "The Bible and Wisdom", "The Fifth Gospel", "Christ and the Spirit World", "The Apocalypse of St. John", "Rosicrucianism and Modern Initiation", "The Archangel Michael", and stuff like that? It seems the titles are hiding Steiner's esoteric Christian writings. --Pete K 00:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Pete...look at the actual list in the article, which has been totally revised since 5 May. Christianity as... appears under his books, and there is a whole section of lectures about Christianity. Feel free to add anything to that section, however; please remember that we can't list the complete works here, however, and the total number of listed lecture series for any given field should be proportionate to its representation in his complete works. OK? Hgilbert 11:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that list. I didn't mean to suggest that anything sinister was going on, only that it seemed to me a portion of his work was missing. --Pete K 06:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Incompleteness is different from bias

The objection that the article does not include all aspects of Steiner's thinking is unfair given the extent of his work; it would take a book, not an article to include these all. It also is not a NPOV objection, but one of completeness. The two are different. It is an ongoing project to make all WIKIPEDIA articles more complete; they do not for that reason represent a single POV.Hgilbert 09:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the issue is selective incompletness. Did Steiner have beliefs on the races that might not look so good in modern times? If so they do need to be included, but only as he stated them am and without the editorialising of describing them as "rascist" (except possibly in the critisms section). Jefffire 09:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If Steiners theories on race are similar to Blavatskys (which I believe they are) it is incorrect to link them to racism or even to the popular ideas of human races. The Theosophical concept of human reaces spans time and space, and includes evolution through a series of seven rootraces each consisting of seven subraces.The earliest "races" in this concept are supposed to have been immaterial and sexless. All of present humanity is supposed to belong to the fifth of these "rootraces", and all human reincarnating souls are supposed to pass though different racial groups and sexes. It is true that some i.e. protonazi groups (ariosophists) delevloped these theories into ugly racism, but the track record of mainstream theosophy and antroposophy proves consistent efforts to improve relations between racial groups. Theosophy was instrumental in strenghtening Indian selfconfidence, religious and otherwise, in the nineteenth christian century. ( The Indian national Congress was actually founded at a Theosophical gathering). Waldorfshools in Soutafrica and other places have been multiracial even under apartheid etc. etc --Vindheim 10:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added a link to a new page summarizing Steiner's view on race. I am removing the NPOV label, as all points of view are freely editing these articles, and I see no points of dispute here unaddressed. Hgilbert 21:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Lectures

I have ordered the lectures thematically according to the publisher (Rudolf Steiner Verlag)'s catalog. I have replaced individual lectures with collections or cycles where possible. Hgilbert 07:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Steiner criticism -- NPOV dispute

Re. Steiner criticism:

(From the article)

There are scientists acquainted with the topics Steiner touched upon who regard his methodology as irreproducible and thus unscientific, and therefore completely disregard his works

This is a serious understatement. First of all, most scientists are probably completely unaware of Steiner's musings. Second, those so "acquainted" are most likely antagonistic. I suspect the pro-Steiner scientist phalange to be mostly negligable.

Steiner frequently asked his students to test everything he said, and not to take his statements on authority or faith. He also said that if it had been practicable, he would have changed the name of his teachings every day, to keep people from hanging on to the literal meaning of those teachings, and to stay true to their character as something intended to be alive and metamorphic.

If he really said that then all is good but I really think that needs some references. However, there remains the question whether students really do challenge Steiner's teachings to any degree. For instance it seems to me that the obvious un-"PC" material is commonly explained away as "difficult", tacitly promoting an ugly kind of anti-intellectualism.

Also, regarding Steiner's teachings I think it's quite uncontroversial to categorize him as pro pan-German, based on his earlier writings. This is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with.

Certainly by the time of his anthroposophical work, Steiner differentiated sharply between being an advocate for the importance of German culture, which was international ('pan-German'), and a critic of the German Reich, and indeed any barbarization of the cultural impulse into a nationalistic movement. (See for example his appeal to the German citizens, 'An das deutsche Volk und die Kulturwelt!' I am aware of one early writing praising Bismarck and the Kaiser upon the succession of the latter to the throne, but this hardly qualifies him as pro pan-German. Do you have quotations that you can share?

The Russian poet Andrej Belij spoke of Steiner's attitude during WWI:

The outbreak of the war brought Steiner new, special problems; he had to guide the outbreaks of nationalistic sentiment into sensible directions. Three weeks [after the outbreak of the First World War] the first momentum of our spontaneous solidarity was quite evidently broken. All through September and through all of October the storms in the canteen did not abate: the British and the Russians gathered together in little groups, the Germans insisted very tactlessly that the war had been instigated by the provocative attitude of England; the Russians countered with the statement that a breach of neutrality amounts to barbarism. Soon, theoretical debates changed to concrete incidents and endangered the whole life of Dornach. Schuré's withdrawal from the Anthroposophical Society, the nasty rumors that filtered out of France via the French part of Switzerland, the duplicity of some Poles - all this had very negative effects. All eyes were on the Doctor; one secretly hoped the he would at least state: "Germany is in the right!" or "Germany is to blame for all the catastrophes!" However he did not accuse a single country, only the mendacity of the press; and he recommended that one not believe the sensational news reports and instead work undauntedly on the aspect of true culture.. Everybody waited tensely for an unequivocal gesture.

One such gesture lay for me in his five lectures concerning the essence of culture which he held in our Schreinerei in November. They contained living representations from Italian, French, English, and German culture Campanella, the 17th century in France, the German "Frenchman" in Steiner's depiction, Leibnitz, Shakespeare, Newton, Schiller and Goethe. An image of Russia arose - the Russia that is striving towards the future, the kingdom of the spirit. Everyone was enthused - the French, the Austrians, the Germans and Russians. The Doctor had succeeded in smoothing the waves of nationalistic passion by pointing out the unity that all great culture has in common. In light of his words we once again turned to one another; the oppressive atmosphere was transformed. Later on other infections appeared, but the nationalistic fever was once and for all overcome; from then on, the members of the various nations at war with one another lived in peace.

This makes his war-time attitude pretty clear.Hgilbert 23:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Steiner as a philosopher -- NPOV dispute

I contest the neutrality of denominating Steiner a philosopher. I challenge you to find contemporary, mainstream philosophers who reference Steiner as a philosopher or comment on Steiner's works as a philosophic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by anonymous (talk • contribs)

See Richard Tarnas' *The Passion of the Western Mind* as well as Robert McDermott's introduction to *The Essential Steiner* for an example of just two contemporary, mainstream philosophers who reference Steiner as a a philosopher or comment on Steiners's work as a philosophic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by anonymous (talk • contribs)

Steiner had a PhD in philosophy and wrote a number of books on themes such as epistemology, free will, and the philosophy of science: Truth and Knowledge, The Philosophy of Freedom, etc. I don't know how you could question whether he was a philosopher. At the same time, his philosophical work has certainly not been influential amongst most mainstream philosophers. Those two statements can stand side by side; they are not mutually contradictory.Hgilbert 22:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Steiner definitely qualifies as a philosopher. --Pete K 00:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Weleda and biodynamic farming -- NPOV dispute

(From the article)

Biodynamic farming is not merely organic -- in addition it works with the movement patterns of the stars and the moon, and with the non-physical beings in nature, and seeks to do testable research on how agriculture can produce the best quality food.

Scientifically, why would the movement patterns of the stars have anything to do with the quality of biodynamically produced foods? Biodynamic farming does not seek to do testable research on agriculture and I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.

Emanuel1972 09:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I do know that Maria Thun (a biodynamic farmer/gardener) has done extensive research (over more than 20 years) on the effects of astrological patterns on different types of plants and on the growth of various parts of plants - root, stem, fruit, blossom etc. Yeah, it does seem pretty mystical but she seems to have found some definite influences and correlations. jarbo 5/14/06

the rationale is not necessarily that the planets influence the plants (though in the case of the moon a direct influence is a possibility), rather that the world moves in rhythmic patterns that are reflected in the growth patterns of plants as well as in the movement of the heavens. --Vindheim 11:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Steiner/ Waldorf Schools

As a graduate of the Santa Fe Waldorf High School, I approve of this page, and certify that all the information stated in this article is acurate per what I learned in the Waldorf School system. Woot! WALDORF FOREVER!

What a surprise? LOL! --Pete K 00:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

balance of POV

I am removing the NPOV label; there is now an unusual amount of space given to critical views in this article.Hgilbert 14:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

but there is no criticism in the criticism section. for instance there must be a more objective voice on steiner's alleged racism than from an anthroposophical commission. trueblood 18:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a complex topic and grew to a point where it demanded a separate article, Rudolf Steiner's views on races, which is referenced in the main article's criticism section. I'm not sure that the commission's report should be in the main article any more, however. What do you think? Hgilbert 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, another user (Jefffire) has said that he is trying to revise the criticism section; see Talk:Anthroposophy.Hgilbert 08:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the commission's statement, which is available in the sub-article, and moved some descriptive content that was sitting in the criticism section to other locations (cross-referenced). Hgilbert 09:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll get on the job soon. I'm just easing myself back into the task after my break from civilisation. Jefffire 11:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

yep, i like this better like it is now trueblood 10:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

master

from the introduction: The herb gatherer introduced Steiner to his master. The master advised Steiner him to study Darwin and Haeckel, Fichte and Schelling that needs a little more explaining. who or what is this master guy? trueblood 10:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have clarified the section as much as possible. The name of the individual in question is unknown. I believe that more accurate would be, "advised him to study Fichte".Hgilbert 20:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

yep, you're devoted, that is a lot better. trueblood 10:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC) )

Problems editing page

The last edit appears to have conflicts with previous edits. I tried to create a merge of the two versions but Wikipedia is unable to save new versions (at least from here). (I get a:

Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still doesn't work, try logging out and logging back in.

The last version is not completely up-to-date. Hgilbert 11:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)