Talk:The Philosophy of Freedom/Archive 1

Philosophy of freedom website

Question: should this site be linked?

For: it is related to the topic.

Against: Wikipedia External links standards recommend avoiding "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." The website appears to mix blog-like features with more permanent content. If there were a clearer distinction, it would be more promising.Hgilbert (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How about links to subpages that have particularly useful content, like one to this introductory material and one to this study course? --EPadmirateur (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the persons who find the article lacking do not provide what they miss? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.70.111 (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're referring to no longer active discussions. hgilbert (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Kerry's book"

The following text is puzzling and I have provisionally removed it from the article: as far as I can tell, there is no reference in the Phil. of Freedom to any work by a person named "Kerry". If this exists, the claim should be cited and clarified (Kerry's first name would help, for example). It should also not be under "historical context", but a separate section ("technical details", perhaps?).

• In his list of literature, Steiner misquoted in his dissertation the title of Kerry's book - this error was appeared in every edition of the dissertation. In 2001 it seems to have been first noticed by Dr. Robin D. Rollinger, a specialist for Austrian philosophy, one of whose students at the university in Freiburg i. Br. brought it to the attention of the Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung in Dornach. hgilbert (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Mention of Schiller in PofF versus being based on Schiller's thoughts

The premise that even though an antecedent philosopher is not mentioned explicitly, his influence is not present, is clearly wrong, especially if there is a valid reference that says the influence was there. In any case, rather than edit warring, I suggest that we discuss the issue here and agree on wording that can be put in the article. Thank you. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he is mentioned on page 267 of the P of F, which is easily discoverable by looking in the book's name register; that's why there was a citation to this, so anyone could verify this easily.

In addition, there is a secondary source cited in this article supporting the details of the connection. hgilbert (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Original research

Though the following is a fascinating line of thought in itself, it really contravenes Wikipedia policies on Original research. I have archived it here until it can be based in some published analysis. hgilbert (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• What about acts of thinking themselves? Are they too free only if they proceed from acts of thinking? Steiner's view here is in danger of generating an infinite regress very familiar in the literature on libertarianism. Steiner might perhaps try to resolve this difficulty by uniting, as he does, pure thinking with the pure motive, arrived at through conceptual intuition, that derives neither from "the existing characterological disposition" nor from "external, commonly accepted moral principle." This act of intuition, a purely spiritual event, blocks the infinite regress. Still, is the pure thinking described here itself free? Only, it would seem, by the Ch. X definition, if its ground "lies within the ideal part of me", and the regress breaks out again. // Steiner's approach has however something in common with the modern analytical view that identifies free acts with those that are done for reasons, rather than arising via causal processes.

I'd be happy to put in refs. Should I do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.24.229 (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you can reference this to published work (not just websites), it becomes verifiable by Wikipedia standards. Do read the WP:Reliable sources policies! Carl Unger's work, Prokofiev's work, and Schickler's Metaphysics as Christology would all be acceptable, for example, as would McDermott's Essential Steiner. hgilbert (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I think perhaps I will go with what you said. Is engaging the book philosophically is out of place in this forum? But I do feel that the article inclines a little to vague and not always accurate summary and that something more was needed. thewikibeagles (formerly fraffly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikibeagles (talk • contribs) 03:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, though I'm happy to discuss substantive issues on the talk page. I'm sure the article could be significantly improved, but this needs to be on the basis of the PoF itself and especially secondary works discussing it. hgilbert (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

OK Did you get all the quotations about Fichte? thewikibeagles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikibeagles (talk • contribs) 04:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that I have now cleared the ground sufficiently to enable us to understand Fichte's Science of Knowledge through recognition of the fundamental mistake contained in it. Of all Kant's successors, Fichte is the one who felt most keenly that only a theory of consciousness could provide the foundation for knowledge in any form, yet he never came to recognize why this is so.

Fichte has allowed himself to be too much influenced by his subjective inclinations to present the freedom of the human personality in the clearest possible light. Harms, in his address, On the Philosophy of Fichte, (p. 15) rightly says: “His world-view is predominantly and exclusively ethical, and his theory of knowledge has no other feature.”

We have seen that the only instance where proof and definitions are not required is in regard to the content of pure logic. The I, however, belongs to reality, where it is necessary to establish the presence of this or that category within the given. This Fichte does not do. And this is why he gave his science of knowledge a mistaken form.

Let us now survey Fichte's line of thought once more. On closer inspection one sees that there is a break in its sequence; a break, indeed, of a kind that casts doubt upon the correctness of his view of the original deed of the I.

Here too, Fichte lacks clear insight into the content of the activity carried out by the I. And he never attained this insight. That is why his science of knowledge could never become what he intended it to be: a philosophical foundation for science in general in the form of a theory of knowledge. Had he once recognized that the activity of the I can only be postulated by the I itself, this insight would also have led him to see that the activity must likewise be determined by the I itself. This, however,

Fichte once came very near the truth. In his Introduction to the Science of Knowledge (1797), he says that there are two theoretical systems: dogmatism — in which the I is determined by the objects; and idealism — in which the objects are determined by the I. In his opinion both are possible world-views. Both are capable of being built up into a consistent system. But the adherents of dogmatism must renounce the independence of the I and make it dependent on the “thing-in-itself.” For the adherents of idealism, the opposite is the case. Which of the two systems a philosopher is to choose, Fichte leaves completely to the preference of the individual. But if one wishes the I to retain its independence, then one will cease to believe in external things and devote oneself to idealism. This line of thought fails to consider one thing, namely that the I cannot reach any choice or decision which has some real foundation if it does not presuppose something which enables it to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikibeagles (talk • contribs) 04:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you sum this up in one relevant sentence? hgilbert (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy with something like ' . . . doctoral study which in part (Ch. vi) uses Fichte's Science of Knowledge as a springboard, making the criticism that Fichte was not able to distinguish between cognitive elements that come from the I and cognitive elements that come through the I."' The difficulty is really deeper though; it is too early in the piece to introduce such a specific and narrow point, especially one about the origins of Steiner's idea in T&S. I am certain that "founded on" is way off. I have not seen Lindenberg's book, but it might be worth checking the passage. I hope for his sake he doesn't think that the view of Steiner is "founded on" Fichte's.Thewikibeagles (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

We could change the wording, but "founded on" does not imply "wholly congruent with". I don't think there's any danger of confusion here. But let's come up with a clearer term. hgilbert (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that T&S does not claim to be founded on Fichte's work, but to use it rather to make a substantial criticism and highlight Steiner's own view. The four or five hard-hitting criticisms culminating in the distinction between "in" the soul and "through" the soul will be very hard to meld with "founded on" in any sense, not just not in the sense of "in complete agreement with". "Uses as a springboard to develop his ideas" is the closest I see. What does Christoph L. actually say? Thewikibeagles (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here; at the point you are wondering about the article speaks of Steiner's dissertation, which was explicitly based on Fichte's theory of science. It's not referring to the PoF. Lindenberg cites the original title of the dissertation, which refers to Fichte. hgilbert (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I was referring to Ch. vi of the dissertation, which _refers_ to Fichte's _Wissenschsaftslehre_ but is most certainly not _based_ on it. It is highly critical of it, the point of the exercise being to show what happens when idealism becomes one-sided and imagines that everything comes out of the ego. Thewikibeagles (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. hgilbert (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

But the title http://ub-goobi-pr2.ub.uni-greifswald.de/viewer/view/170701/1/ does not use the phrase "based on": its "mit besonderer Ruecksicht auf Fichte's etc.". - "with special reference to . . . " Nothing about "founded on". And the besonderer Ruecksicht is I may say ganz critical!

OK, I've changed it accordingly to "focusing on" hgilbert (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This creates another problem, as there are two chapters on Kant's theory of knowledge but only one on Fichte's. So I have made the change to "an epistemological study that includes discussions of Kant's and Fichte's theories of knowledge . . ." I hope that is OK with you. Thewikibeagles (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine. hgilbert (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that this also means though that we will have to put in a reference to _Truth and Science_ as well as to Lindenberg. Or does Lindenberg mention Kant? What do you think? Thewikibeagles (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's OK without a reference, as this is merely a factual matter...but if you want to reference the original text, that's fine. hgilbert (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Descartes

Can someone show us where in Ch. III Steiner criticizes Descartes? Are we just missing it? Shouldn't this be Chapter IV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikibeagles (talk • contribs) 01:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There are two different chapter numberings in the English translations; sometimes the first, introductory section is counted as a chapter, sometimes not. The German version does not number the introduction as a chapter, so it is chapter 3 in the German version and some English translations.hgilbert (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! That clears it up. Here's our next worry. We read 'In Ch. III, Steiner criticizes Descartes.' Does he, though? He writes that Descartes could not have any reason for "therefore I am" in the _cogito_ other than that I exist insofar as I think and am part of a "principle" which gains its meaning from itself alone. Why is this a criticism of Descartes? It is rather an explication or an account of the way in which the _cogito_ can yield _sum res cogitans_ (I am a thinking thing) in Meditation III. Thewikibeagles (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have another concern about the Descartes remark. The wikipedia piece reads, 'In Ch. III, Steiner criticizes Descartes. We posit dualism between mind and body, suggests Steiner, because we perceive the outer nature of the world and its inner nature in radically separate ways. Our sensory perceptions inform us about the outer appearance of the world, while our thought life penetrates its inner nature.' This makes it seems as though Steiner's criticism of Descartes is his mind-body dualism. But if it is indeed criticism Steiner's observations about Descartes bear on the issue of the self-supporting character of thinking, if you like, and its relation to the existence of the self. Thewikibeagles (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A further issue. Steiner does not say that we "posit" dualism; and nor does he discuss mind-body dualism in the metaphysical sense in Ch. III. The polarity is rather between thinking and perceiving. This makes sense in the neo-Kantian context of transcendental idealism, but it really is not the same as Cartesian dualism of mind and body.Thewikibeagles (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to improve this; what do you think?

I appreciate your dedication to discussing questions here; you can also make changes directly, if you find appropriate wording. hgilbert (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind compliment. We have the same feeling about the importance of getting the book's arguments right, and also the same appreciation of their quality. I do like the changes you have made, especially those replacing the mind-body business with the real dichotomy, which subsumes mind and body, of perception and thinking. And I am very heartened to see what can be achieved as we go forward. I will start to make changes on my own, but do keep an eye on them in case they go off the rails! I will think more about the passage about Descartes on thinking. Thewikibeagles (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Overview

I have merged back in material that was cited to McDermott; in general, it's good to avoid removing text supported by citations unless there is a particular ground for doing so. This is especially so in this article, that has relatively few passages supported by critical sources. hgilbert (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Steiner describes two sources for human motivation: our natural being, that part of us we share with the animal world - our physical body, drives and desires, prejudices and habits - and the dictates of conscience and abstract ethical or moral principles. Both nature and culture determine motivations that play into our will and soul life. Between the two sides of our nature, neither of which is individualized, we find the freedom to choose how to think and act. This passage is actively misleading and inaccurate to the text. It corresponds to Schiller's view, in which Spieltrieb operates between the realms of physical and logical necessity, and produces freedom, but it does not correspond to Steiner's. His view is rather than any moral content that is proposed can operate as an element of unfreedom, but it does not do so if it is suffused the the transparent clarity of thinking. By overcoming the dictates of both our 'lower' and 'higher' sources of experience, by orchestrating a meeting place of objective and subjective elements of experience, we become true and free individuals. Freedom for Steiner thus does not lie in uninhibited expression of our subjective nature, but in the conscious unification of this with the objective constraints of the world. What on earth is going on here?

We are afraid that McDermott is just making this up. This is the problem with a mechanical use of sources. His summary, as summarized in our PoF article isnot accurate. A tiny example: free and true individuals? Where does this come from?

And if this were Steiner's view, consider: is the orchestration itself free? Does the orchestra play freely? We have not advanced an iota into a fully satisfying view of the orchestration of "a meeting place of objective and subjective elements" were this Steiner's approach to the puzzle of freedom. I am sorry to express this sharply, but the report is simply not credible. It is a kind of vague summary of some vague ideas having some loose resemblance to other ideas in Steiner, but not to The Philosophy of Freedom. It is hard to supply the reasons for the changes when the existing text is in these places so systematically incorrect. It would be better to supply a reference to the primary source, which is, obviously , available, rather than to some inadequate secondary source which is included merely because it is a secondary source. Thewikibeagles (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia's policies: and WP:Verify and WP:True. hgilbert (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And also (again) no original research. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Very interesting! We did not know this about wikipedia. A bit shocking, from one point of view. One might for example include references to "facts" cited in books by David Irving in a wikipedia article about the holocaust, claiming the existence of sources, however unreliable, as the test for inclusion, not truth. How does this work? We are distressed. Thewikibeagles (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What is to be done if the quoted source is inaccurate? Thewikibeagles (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if all the editors agree that it is inaccurate, they can simply not use it. But if some feel that it is accurate, the published source should generally be included. Of course, there will often be countervailing sources that will moderate the situation or present other sides.

In the case of highly unorthodox points of view: these will generally not be published by peer-reviewed journals or high quality, academic presses. These have priority, and marginal viewpoints may be ignored here if they are rejected by the principal authorities in the outer world. hgilbert (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone has kindly sent us the McDermott book, and it might be worth chatting to him. With your permission, H. Gilbert, we will go through the McDermott refs., passing them through this Talk page for your attention. We have somehow formed the impression that you wrote the original version of the page. Is that true? The reason we ask is thatwe would like to have a shot at recasting the four paragraphs in the "Overview" section. Thewikibeagles (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(Other content moved to your talk page) -- I've been a contributing editor, but there have been many other editors active here.

I suggest creating a draft of the rewrite here: Talk:Philosophy of Freedom/Overview. We can work on this and then insert it when it is ready. hgilbert (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

OK super. We'll get weaving. Thewikibeagles (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi H. Gilbert, We have the McDermott _New Essential Steiner_, but it's the 2009 edition. We cannot find the passage or anything like it cited as pp. 41-44. Do you have the 1984 edition? Could you check it? Has the text of McDermott's Intro changed perhaps? 66.251.27.7 (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

McDermott doesn't actually speak about this; I have revised the content to conform better to Steiner's own discussion of the theme in Chapter 9 and changed the reference to refer directly to this. I'm sure the wording could still be improved. hgilbert (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Lowndes: reformulate

Vis a vis the following:

Florin Lowndes has proposed that The Philosophy of Freedom, as reworked by its author, Steiner, for the second and final version, creates 'a formal link' between the 'ancient path' and the 'new path' of two esoteric paths of schooling.

This is unhelpful as presently phrased, since the reader has no idea what these two paths are. I suggest trying to formulate this on the talk page here first, and then adding it when it's achieved a clearer and simpler formulation. For example,

Florin Lowndes proposed that The POF formally links an esoteric path centered on ...... with one centered on..........<ref.... hgilbert (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, as ever, the aim is to select an appropriate article and then be reasonably succinct for the information of the reader and in proportion to the context and content, while not mis-paraphrasing the author referred to (perhaps due to inadvertent taint of POV), and making use of links to avoid duplication. If the reader is given the reference s/he can decide whether or not to follow it up, then or later. I have to admit that something more may be required here (and at Chakra) to satisfy Qexigator's 'bookability' test, but to ensure that the reader is made aware of what distinguishes Steiner's 'path', reference to the article on 'Anthroposophy' or 'Anthroposophical view of the human being' or 'Rudolf Steiner's exercises for spiritual development' seems to be called for. Perhaps what is needed are some further authentic citable references (in some of those articles) from or about Steiner's literary legacy, including his "Leading Thoughts: Anthroposophy as a Path of Knowledge", as in 'Esoteric path: Paths of spiritual development' section of Anthroposophy article, but I see no mention of his lectures "Karmic Relationships: Esoteric Studies", which are accessible here for instance [1]. Could the article Rudolf Steiner's exercises for spiritual development be a place for this, if not previously tried and conclusively rejected? Qexigator (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the karma exercises could be added to that article. hgilbert (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Unilateral?

It seemed curious to refer to a book as being "unilaterally" titled in a certain manner. That the title differs substantially from earlier variants seems obvious on the face of it. Is there something else we want to say? hgilbert (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Historical context

This section of the article includes:

"...The Philosophy of Freedom [1894] was also the culmination of work that Steiner had published on Goethe, focused on epistemology and the philosophy of science, particularly .... The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception (1886). ...".

For a discussion of the purport of these two works according to the author himself, and how this can be adequately and concisely expressed, see Talk:Rudolf Steiner in the section "1923 preface of Theory of Knowledge...". Qexigator proposes that this article would better inform the ordinary reader if it were to mention that when the revised and final 1924 edition of that book was being prepared for publication Steiner, in his Preface (dated The Goetheanum, Dornach, November 1923), made clear that he wished it to be known that this was the work which he considered to be the foundation and justification, as a theory of knowledge for all that he had since asserted orally or in print; while he had and would also let something else be known: that he considered the other work (which had been revised for the 1918 edition) to contain, in a philosophical form, the entire content of what he had later (after the first publication in 1894) developed explicitly as anthroposophy. These are distinct remarks by the author, not inconsistent but complementary, such that the one needs to be understood as well as the other. Qexigator (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)