|
Peter Staudenmaier's grasp of philosophy is not very
firm, as this thread will show. This has not stopped him from
claiming elsewhere that he has found significant problems
with Steiner's epistimology (Steiner's PhD thesis). I would
be more inclined to believe him if he had even a basic grasp
of the major issuse of philosophical thought.
To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040306002331.66763.qmail@web14425.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:31:27 -0500
Daniel wrote:
"Whether or not you believe in a subjective reality for
ideas, or an absolute one."
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think that is a false dichotomy.
Daniel:
Then you should read up in philosophy. The question has been
a rather large issue over the course of the last thousand
years. If you have solved the problem, there are quite a few
people who would be interested in hearing about it.
Peter Staudenmaier:
There aren't very many examples of absolute reality in history
(or in the rest of life, for that matter; reality changes,
after all).
Daniel:
Again, study up on philosophy. Going to the root of things,
there is a fundamental point of disagreement between those
that believe an objective reality of ideas exists, and those
who deprecate such an idea. This question exists independet
of whether the mind is capable of apprehending the objective
reality in any, or even a few instances. Much of what you
say (here and elsewhere) leads me to think you fall into the
category of those who deprecate the idea of an objective reality
of ideas. However, there are logical consequences of such
as stance, which have been examined in considerable depth
over the centuries.
Either reality is absolute, or it isn't. If it is, then there
is an absolute reality, there is an absolute reality in history
as well. If there is no absolute reality, then there is none
in history either. If there is an absolute reality, then there
is an independent "objective" intent in Steiner's
work that we may attempt to apprehend. In your thinking you
seem to like ambiguity - reality is sometimes absolute, and
sometimes not, depending on how you want to argue it. A person
is racist, or they are not, depending on how you want to argue
it (which would be fine if the definition were consistent),
a sentence means one thing, or it means another, depending
on how you want to argue it.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I really am not a relativist, and I remain puzzled that I
somehow gave you that impression.
Daniel:
You say this, but then you espouse relativist positions, particularly
in deprecating the existance of an objective truth to which
our apprehension is either more or less acurate. Or put in
another manner, you doubt that Steiner's thought constitutes
a whole that can be understood "on it's own terms"
and claim that to attempt do so in as objective a manner would
be pointless. This line of argument relies on an unstated
belief in the relative value of all ideas; the ideas mean
only what the thinker wants to or is able to make of them.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Some statements about the past are less true, some are more
true, and a few are close to certain. Part of the point of
historical inquiry is to hone our claims about the past in
order to make them more true.
Daniel:
Well that is certainly an idealist position. It is also incompatible
with some of your other views. For example, Steiner lived
in the past. He wrote and lectured. What did he mean when
he said X? Can we ever determine what he meant? What he intended?
Or is the best anyone can ever do is determine what they think
Steiner said? If you believe in the existence of absolute
truth, then our opinions of what we think Steiner said must
be measured agains this. If you deny that such measurement
is possible, then it is either because you find an unbridgable
gap between Reality and human reason (the Kantian stance)
or you deny the very existence of an objective Reality (the
relativist position).
Daniel wrote:
"How you hope to avoid charges of hypocricy in accusing
Waage of failing to integrate all of Steiner's work into his
understanding, and then failing to do so in yours."
Peter Staudenmaier:
That isn't what I accuse Waage of, but in any case, you can
easily see from my postings to this list that I take both
the 'good' sides and the 'bad' sides of Steiner's work into
account. If you're trying to say that I ought to pay the same
amount of attention to the 'good' as I do to the 'bad', then
I disagree.
Daniel:
You accuse Waage of ignoring the parts of Steiner he doesn't
like. That is, they aren't integrated into his view of Steiner.
If that is not what you accuse Waage of, then what do you
mean when you say "My complaint about Waage is that he
simply ignores the stuff in Steiner that he doesn't like."
How can this be remedied? By including the other aspects.
This you have done to some degree here with the question of
anti-Semitism, but I have not really seen any attempt with
the racism question, or at all in your published articles.
Nor do I feel that you understand Steiner sufficiently to
understand why he might have said the things you quote. As
to the question of how much attention to pay to various aspects
of Steiner's work, I should point out that if a man says a
thousand times "respect every individual" and then
once says something disrespectful, then in evaluating the
disrespectful statement, the fact that it is one in a thousand
is relevant to judging whether the man was respectful or disrespectful.
I don't think you should necessarily pay exactly the same
amount of attention to the 'good' as to the 'bad', especially
if your aim is to shed light on the bad. But objectivity requires
some, probably significant, acknowledgement of the proportion
of the 'bad' to the 'good'.
Daniel Hindes
The thread contunues.
|
