To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040306201904.91990.qmail@web14426.mail.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 20:49:12 -0500

Hi again Daniel, you wrote:
"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."

Peter Staudenmaier:
It is no longer clear to me what the "of ideas" bit means above, but I do believe in an objective reality.

Daniel:
Sorry, it is a bit of philosophical shorthand. Basically, you can have an idea, and I can have an idea (say, "triangle"). What is the relationship of my idea with yours? Are we both apprehending the same idea, or any similarities between our ideas just a coincidence. If we are apprehending the same idea, that means that "an objective reality of ideas exists". If we further take this objective reality of ideas as being primary to physical reality, then we are in the camp of the idealist philosophers. It might help to look up "idealism" in an encyclopedia. It goes into quite some depth on the issue. Then you can look up "empiricism" and read about the other point of view. It's Philosophy 101, really.

I continue to be curious about the "problems" you claim to have found in Steiner's epistimology.
-----------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"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."

Peter Staudenmaier:
What do you mean by an objective reality of ideas? Is this different from an objective reality of things?

Daniel:
See above. I am basically accusing you of being an empiricist in your outlook, even as you claim to be among the idealists.
-----------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"Either reality is absolute, or it isn't."

Peter Staudenmaier:
Lots of it isn't. Reality changes.

Daniel:
Exactly the empiricists position.
-----------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"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."

Peter Staudenmaier:
I think your all-or-nothing stance misses the mark. History is a complex phenomenon; some of it has absolute qualities, some of it has very un-absolute qualities.

Daniel:
You are missing the philosophical principle. You claim to be against the logical consequences of empiricism (relativism) but you continually take the empiricist position against the idealist one.
-----------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"If there is an absolute reality, then there is an independent "objective" intent in Steiner's work that we may attempt to apprehend."

Peter Staudenmaier:
I don't see what those two things have to do with one another. Since Steiner is dead, his intentions are no longer accessible to us. This scarcely means that reality has ceased to be objective.

Daniel:
Again you are missing the philosophical principle. The question is whether Steiner's intentions can be apprehended. From one viewpoint it makes little difference if he is alive or dead, the question is whether we all (alive and dead) share the same world of ideas or not.
-----------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"In your thinking you seem to like ambiguity - reality is sometimes absolute, and sometimes not, depending on how you want to argue it."

Peter Staudenmaier:
No, depending on reality itself. Much of historical reality is indeed very ambiguous.

Daniel:
Again, philosophical principles. If you argue that reality is fundamentally ambiguous (inapprehendable) then the logical consequences are relativism.
-----------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"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 think that's silly. If you don't like an argument, offer a counter-argument, don't complain about what the other person "wants" to argue.

Daniel:
It is indeed silly. My primary complaint here is that your standards are often inconsistent, and that we have such problems with even basic sentences, which often seem mean something different to you than to the rest of us.
-----------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"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."

Peter Staudenmaier:
That is the very opposite of my position. I think that some claims about history are more accurate than others.

Daniel:
Again I must point out how philosophically inconsistent this assertion is.

-----------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
"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."

Peter Staudenmaier:
I do deny part of this. It is often a good idea to *attempt* a more objective understanding of a given phenomenon; that is one of the senses of objectivity that I endorse, as sort of heuristic device. But I think that people who believe they have *achieved* a purely objective conception of what Steiner "really meant" are fooling themselves. I also think that people who believe that Steiner's thought constitutes a consistent whole are missing all of the changes, developments, reversals, inconsistencies, and loose ends in his thought.

Daniel:
Again, this is evidence of philosophical inconsistency.

-----------------------------------
Peter Staudenmaier:
I wrote earlier:
"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."
And you replied:
"Well that is certainly an idealist position."
No, it's simply a realist position. Idealism is not the opposite of relativism.

Daniel:
Indeed. But in philosphy, realism is the opposite of idealism. You don't appear to have much backgroud in philosophy.
-----------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"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?"

Peter Staudenmaier:
I think that's the wrong question. Our job is to examine what he wrote and said, not speculate about what he intended.

Daniel:
Now it appears that you are ill informed on the philosophy of history as well. History is more than cataloguing who said what and when. That is mere antiquarianism. The job of the historian is to go beyond that and attempt to understand what he is studying. This involves among other things speculating on the intentions of historical figures. Really, this is the most basic History 101. You are on the record as genuinely wanting to understand Steiner, yet here you claim that it is not actually your job. Your positions are quite inconsistent indeed.
-----------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"Or is the best anyone can ever do is determine what they think Steiner said?"

Peter Staudenmaier:
That is exactly what every reader and every listener always does. When you have direct access to the speaker or writer, you can ask her or him to clarify. When the author is dead, you can't do that.

Daniel:
You've missed the fundamental question of philosophical principles. Whether the author is dead or alive makes no difference. Is it possible to apprehend an objectively real idea?
-----------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"If you believe in the existence of absolute truth"

Peter Staudenmaier:
Why do you keep conflating absolute and objective? Am I missing some mediating element here? Lots of things that have objective existence are not at all absolute. Do you think otherwise?

Daniel:
You are missing quite a bit, actually. Really you need to read up on basic philosophy. Your grasp of this area appers to be quite weak.
-----------------------------------

Daniel wrote:
"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)."

Peter Staudenmaier:
I reject both positions. There is an objective reality. Parts of it are knowable. Parts of it are not.

Daniel:
Always trying to have it both ways, I see. And you presume to have found philosophical errors in Steiner? It would help to get the basic concepts of philosophy down first. Your above position ("There is an objective reality. Parts of it are knowable. Parts of it are not.") is pure Kant.

Daniel Hindes

Peter Staudenmaier did not respond to this post.