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 22:07:24 -0500

Daniel wrote:
"Instead you have said that it would be "an abdication of responsibility" (to what or whom, I must wonder) for you to attempt to be objective, even for one article."

Peter Staudenmaier:
There is nothing objective about pretending that Steiner's entire work forms a consistent whole, if that's what you're getting at. But I think you and I simply disagree about what sort of objectivity is appropriate in any case. Suspending critical judgement is very much the wrong kind of objectivity.

Daniel:
Granted:
Suspending critical judgement is not desireable.

We are back to philosophical subjectivism versus philosophical idealism. It is only out of a relativist subjectivism that you can claim that Steiner's work does not form a consistent whole. And only if it does not form a consistent whole can you claim that it is pointless to attempt to understand it. If, however, you stand on relativist subjectivism, the ground under your feet is shaky indeed.

Steiner's work either forms a consistent whole, or it does not. If it does form a consistent whole then it is possible to be objective about it. If it does not, then it is not possible to be objective about that, or anyting else, for that matter.

A whole may contain contradictory or appearently contradictory aspects. Identifying appearent contradictions is easy. Reconciling appearent contradictions requires considering both sides. No one has objectivity who has not considered both sides.

Daniel Hindes

Peter Staudenmaier did not respond to this post.