|
Peter Staudenmaier just can't acknowldege the
responsibility of attempting a comprehensive understanding of
Steiner, even as he has claimed that is his goal.
To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040305234720.10061.qmail@web14426.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 21:53:33 -0500
Daniel wrote:
"My fundamental stance is not that the documents you
have found don't support the case you make. Rather, my point
is that the documents you have found represent a small aspect
of Steiner's work and the history of the movement (well under
1%). The other 99.9% tell a vastly different story."
Peter Staudenmaier:
Vastly different in what sense? If you mean vastly different
in the sense that much of Steiner's work is irrelevant to
the topics I examine, then I largely agree. If you mean that
the preponderance of his work on race, for example, is anti-racist,
then I disagree. If you're talking about his teachings on
Jews and Jewishness, I think it's pretty much split down the
middle, as I've explained before.
Daniel:
It is precicely in the fact that you fail to see how the rest
of Steiner's work relates to his views on race that I consider
your greatest weakness.
Daniel wrote:
"The problem is how to integrate the two parts - your
small collection of documents and the 88,600 pages of other
material - into a consistent whole and examine that."
Peter Staudenmaier:
I don't think that would be a sensible way to approach the
matter. If you want to study Annie Besant's atheist writings,
for example, you'd do well to set aside her Theosophical writings.
Daniel:
If you did that, you would have an incomplete view of Besant.
You could not claim to understand Besant, only her athiest
writings. The same applies to Steiner. If you want to be an
expert on those quotes that make Steiner appear racist, so
be it. If you want to be an expert on Steiner, you'll have
to do a little more work than that. I can understand you hesitency
to attempt an full understanding of Steiner - it is a lot
of work, after all - but I don't feel that you can get around
the basic problem that if you don't understand Steiner's main
points, you simply don't possess the historical context in
which to evaluate the rest of the quotes.
Daniel wrote:
"But you have given no indication of being in the least
bit interested in such an undertaking."
Peter Staudenmaier:
It is certainly true that I am not interested in trying to
force everything Steiner wrote into some "consistent
whole". That would be a fundamental misunderstanding
of the nature of historical reconstruction.
Daniel:
On the contrary, it is a prerequisite for historical reconstruction.
I have precious little hope of understanding Stalingrad if
I don't know how the Germans got there or why they refused
to leave. At best I can describe the who, what, where and
when, but I have no chance of properly explaining the why
unless I possess a fairly comprehensive understanding of the
psychology a certain short Austrian 1500 miles away. You are
fine with your Steiner quotes as long as you stay with the
who, what, where and when, but as soon as you attempt the
why you are lost unless you have at least some understanding
of how Steiner thought.
Daniel Hindes
This thread continues.
|
