Misplaced Pages

Talk:Rudolf Steiner: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:03, 22 October 2006 editPete K (talk | contribs)3,760 edits →antisemitism← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:26, 13 August 2024 edit undoTgeorgescu (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users55,035 edits →NOT gnostic: he was schooled in Gnosticism and he was eclectic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{FAQ}}
{{RFMF|Rudolf Steiner|02:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)}}
{{Architecture}} {{Talk header}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ps}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Steiner, Rudolf|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|s&a-priority=High|s&a-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Architecture|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Disability}}
{{WikiProject Education |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Occult|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=Low|philosopher=yes|continental=yes|epistemology=yes|science=yes}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Spirituality|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Austria|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Switzerland|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 500K
|counter = 4
|algo = old(15d)
|archive = Talk:Rudolf Steiner/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask1=/Archive <#> |mask2=/Steiner and theosophy
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=
}}


== Too many citations for any given sentence ==
{{talkheader}}
{{WPBiography|living=no|needs-infobox=yes}}
{| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;"
|-
|This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by Werdnabot. Any sections older than '''10''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
|-
|}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-10 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Talk:Rudolf Steiner/Archive2--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
Archives:
*]
*]
*]


See ]; we shouldn't have large numbers of citations for any single sentence. 2-3 citations should suffice normally. ] (]) 19:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


:Well, that's a response to people claiming at this talk page that it would be somehow doubtful that the mainstream academic POV is that Steiner was a pseudoscientist ''pur sang''. They did not seem to be content with just four or five citations.
==Merging Articles==
:And there are Wikipedians willing to argue that Anthroposophy isn't a religion, although I ] more than 50 scholars endorsing that it is (see ]).
:I had to argue with people who denied these are ''the'' mainstream academic views unless one cites at least two dozens scholars. See the archives of this talk page and ]. So, yup, there are so many citations because such pro-Anthroposophy group of editors (see the cited FTN topic) either honestly did not know how mainstream science and mainstream academia view Anthroposophy, or at least pretended they didn't.
:They denied that Rudolf Steiner is a pseudoscientist, they denied he is a pseudohistorian, they denied that Anthroposophy is a religion&mdash;despite these facts being print-published in reputable sources for more than seventy years, and still published in reasonably recent ].
:While I can see the reason for the second {{t|overcite}}, I can't see the reason for the first one. Solved. I do notice that ] is against many ''citations'' (i.e. the numbers in superscript), not against many ''reliable sources''. ] (]) 16:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not seeing anything really standing out in the current version at least for excessive foot notes (don't think I saw more than 3). That said, if there's ever a sparing need for many references in one footnote, there's always . ] (]) 17:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


== First marriage ==
I support the merging of the articles. There are about 20 articles on this and similar, related subjects already. Much of the information on Steiner is also in the article about Anthroposophy. Merging the race and ethnicity article with this one would be very appropriate as it never should have been split off in the first place. '''] 01:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)'''
:This is being discussed ]. &mdash; ] ] 16:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


His first marriage ended in divorce in June 1904, according to Dutch Misplaced Pages, citing (Lindenberg 2011:356; Zander 2007:241).


The only thing that is doubtful is separation (without divorce) vs. divorce. My German is not good enough for such nuances. E.g. religious Dutchies get formally separated instead of divorcing, since their religion does not allow them to divorce.
Merging of articles can be a good thing, as long as each article isn't too long and is proportionate. Currently, the article "Steiner's views on race and Ethnicity" is way, way too long. Someone needs to cut it down. Steiner's views on race and ethnicity comprised about one-millionth of everything he said, yet it takes the bulk of the article. ] 18:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Reason? His second wife moved in his home, while he was married to his first wife. ] (]) 01:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Well proportionate shouldn't just reflect a balance of the articles, but a balance of what Steiner said. I agree with what you said on race and ethnicity only being one-millionth of what Steiner said. You really have to look closely to find any talk about race. I don't even know if it should be on the article myself, although people in today's world seem intrigued. Perhaps there should be a seperate article, one on PLANS or Steiner critics. Afterall, I've never seen anything on Steiner's racial views in Britannica. Perhaps that's because: (1) either the arguments aren't valid to the scholars who wrote the article and (2) there is simply too much other information about Steiner's contributions and beliefs to even print a blip. ] 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


== Schizophrenic ==
:Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Egamirorrimeht. Just so everyone knows, Misplaced Pages administrators have the ability to check the IP addresses of accounts to see if people are using multiple accounts as ]s. Do not do this. &mdash; ] ] 20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Now we have two psychiatrists who have diagnosed Rudolf Steiner with schizophrenia. Unlike (I presume) Wolfgang Treher, ] actually met Rudolf Steiner, not to speak that Jung was much more famous than Treher. ] (]) 00:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
::The section is indeed controversial, but simply wiping it out is no solution right now. Please help us find a balanced presentation! ] 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


:And yet somehow the man managed to write books, lead and develop a community, a schooling system, and create architectural masterpieces. Stupid. ] (]) 21:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Or maybe it's a fellow friend of mine who shares an interest in Steiner and we go to the same school and use shared cpu's.


::{{talk quote|Some psychiatrists believe that Gurus are unmedicated mild schizophrenics in a constant psychosis, I can also say the same exact thing here. You shout words that are true, but again, it has little to do with the article, and the situation here. ] 18:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)}}
And Hgilbert- I wasn't wip] 20:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


::{{cite journal | last=Price | first=John S | last2=Stevens | first2=Anthony | title=The Human Male Socialization Strategy Set | journal=Evolution and Human Behavior | publisher=Elsevier BV | volume=19 | issue=1 | year=1998 | issn=1090-5138 | doi=10.1016/s1090-5138(97)00105-0 | pages=57–70 | quote=Many studies of cults and revitalization movements have noted that the leaders are susceptible both to auditory hallucinations and sudden changes in beliefs. The schizotype, we suggest, is someone who has the capacity to shed the commonly held and socially determined world view of his natal group, and to create a unique and arbitrary world view of his own, into which he may indoctrinate others and become a prophet, or fail to indoctrinate others and become a psychotic patient.}}
Hey-wait-I've got an idea!!!! Why don't we just insert the entire article from "Rudolf Steiner's views on Race and Ethnicity!!!" All 45 pages of it....we can put it in this article since nobody else here cares about balance of topic. ] 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


::Besides, if Steiner had freedom of speech, so did Treher and Jung. All of them wrote opinions which are germane to this article. ] (]) 06:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
And another thing, HGILBERT- You simply saying "Please help us find a balanced presentation!" is nothing. You're not helping discuss. Yopu're not contributing here. You're just criticising and tearing down.


::Besides, we don't tell that what Treher and Jung claimed would be true or false, we just state they made such claims. ] (]) 23:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Plus, IT WAS BALANCED! Like I said, I left equal representation of both sides up. I took out the filler that can be seen in the bloated article on Steiner's racial views. I'm not arguing that article. I'm simply trying to pop the bloat of this article.] 20:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


== Univocality ==
:::It would be better to discuss such wholesale edits before making them. This sort of thing is what got the articles locked up in the first place. Just because you have a good idea doesn't mean everyone here will agree with it. '''] 20:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)'''


In respect to the claims about Steiner's Docetism, Adoptionism, Nestorianism, and Gnosticism: I don't believe in the univocality of the Bible, why I would believe in the univocality of mainstream ]? ] (]) 16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
::I'm sorry; I feel the same way you do about the imbalance in the presentation. But we have had serious edit wars over this, and it would be helpful to come to an agreement before making major changes. Let me repeat; I agree that the section is bloated and one-sided. ] 20:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


== NOT gnostic ==


id suggest removing this introductory statement that Steiner was influenced by Gnosticism as it's too speculative. Citing academic opinions on the nature of Steiner's work isn't the same as reading the words from the man himself. Anthroposophy is the study of man and the cosmos - it's more aligned to Hermeticism than it is to gnosticism as gnosticism is a faith based system, whereas Anthroposophy is a scientific examination (whether people accept it to be or not). He does not focus on the idea of a Demiurge, but utilizes the belief systems and names of and in multiple religions.
Okay then, now that there is agreement that the section is bloated, let's come up with a way to edit it down. What does everyone think about what I did? I edited alot of the details, as people can see those within the large article. I left two paragraphs--one giving a broad general argument informing of Steiner's beliefs concerning human individuality being greater than that person's race. The other paragraph informs readers to the fact that there is indeed controversy and the reasons why. Each of those paragraphs are essential to the main points regarding Steiner's beliefs concerning races. The details (all of them) should be in the article, not on Steiner's page.] 21:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Here is a quote from Steiner: "... And if people who venture to judge of Anthroposophy to-day, would take the trouble to observe these things, they would not fall into the calumny of confusing Anthroposophy with what is really only a dishing up of ancient Gnosticism, or similar things." - Feb 06, 1921, public lecture
Plus I think it's particularly funny that Stiner's views on Christianity (which take up book after book, lecture after lecture) comprise one sentence here in his article, while his views on race and ethnicity, which has been said to be one-millionth of what spoke about is the largest article on his page. ] 21:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 21:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
:There has been a claim made that you are a sockpuppet. Should any of us be satisfied with your suggestion that you are not and simply sharing a computer with someone else? I know I'm not - no offense intended. If you are sharing a computer with someone else, can you please let us know who they are so we won't think you are one person using two accounts? Thanks! '''] 21:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)'''


:The fact he is influenced by gnosticism is hardly speculative and clearly well cited given that you had to remove ''five'' ] supporting the claim—] 01:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
::My claim was only based on the fact that is a new user with no edits prior to posting here, that he/she has a detailed understanding of the debate, and that immediately before, another anonymous poster commented. I have do not have his IP address information. Maybe he is the same user as ] (who commented above). &mdash; ] ] 21:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


:Hi, {{u|Project Apollo}}, see especially {{tqq|Was Steiner a Gnostic? Yes and no.}} which is a verbatim quote inside our article. See also the quote below it. It's a complicated matter, and cannot be answered simplistically.
:Could be - but the comment about using a roommate's computer seemed a little curious to me. '''] 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)'''
:To delve into terminology, "Gnostic" means "one who knows," rather than "one who believes." So, {{tqq|Anthroposophy is a scientific examination}} does not exactly help your argument that Steiner isn't Gnostic.

:Hermeticism, Gnosticism, and Rosicrucianism are not mutually exclusive terms. Also, you say it like it can be only black or white, while in fact there are nuances.
No, first off it wasn't my roomate who posted, nor was it done from the same computer. The other is a friend of mine, or more like a mutual aquaintance who I briefed on everything that was happening on Steiner's page this past week. He has a very clear opinion of the matter and has wanted to past something for some time, but only yesterday we were at the library and I saw him, actually, in the Steiner section at the library (Texas Tech is fortunate to have an extensive Steiner collection....some 500 books, so we're both very well read on the subject.) I told him I posted just a minute ago downstairs and, like I said, he's wanted to post for some time and share his views. I told him to make an account and told him how to edit, etc. and this is how all this started.
:So, to answer the charge, Anthroposophy is not {{tqq|only a dishing up of ancient Gnosticism}}, but it is certainly influenced by Ancient Gnosticism. I mean, Steiner did not take everything from Gnosticism at face value, but was certainly influenced by it (to the extent it was known in Steiner's time).

:Either he was a full-blown Gnostic, or he was no Gnostic at all is a ]. Ancient Gnosticism means a bewildering variety of sects and religious beliefs, to the extent that some scholars have questioned if speaking of Ancient Gnosticism has any meaning at all. I don't know if Steiner knew that, but present-day scholars know it full well.
Anyways, I'm tired of nothing getting done here. My argument is that the current "Steiner's views on Race and Ethnicity" is way too long. Something needs to be done to shorten it. Nobody else is willing to discuss shortening the bloated article, and it appears that there are no dissenters. The only reason it was retracted was that it was done before people had a chance to debate it, and now everyone's obviously had that chance. So I'm going to shorten it to the version that it was yesterday, because there is definate agreement that it is bloated. Now is will at least have balance. ] 15:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
:Steiner being influenced by Gnosticism has been described based upon at least 13 ], several of them being written by full professors who are experts in this field. What about the Catholic Church, what made them decide that Anthroposophy is a neognostic heresy? I did not analyze their statements, but two elements are obvious: reincarnation and Steiner's Christology, plus a suggestion that the Holy Trinity does not mean the seven Elohim. ] (]) 06:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

:If I wanted to smear Steiner as a Gnostic, why did I ] two ] which say that's only half-true? ] (]) 19:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

:Rudolf Steiner's official journal was called ''Lucifer Gnosis.'' My emphasis is not upon Lucifer, like that of theological prudes, but upon Gnosis. This is at least a token he moved inside (neo)Gnostic circles. ] (]) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
:I don't know who is speaking here - it would be helpful if you sign in. From the spelling and grammar, it appears to be Sune. So, you admit, it wasn't a sockpuppet - it was a meatpuppet. Fair enough. You can shorten it to yesterday's version and I'll repair whatever you do. It makes no difference to me. Better, however, to discuss the issues here and not go making wild edits that will be reversed. Thanks! '''] 23:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)'''
:So, was he a Gnostic? The answer is neither yes nor no: he was schooled in Gnosticism and he was eclectic. ] (]) 07:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

::BTW, I'm happy to discuss shortening the bloated article. I think all the apologetic stuff should come out and his actual views - i.e. quotes from his books and lectures - should make up this article. It is, after all, about his views. Nobody can describe his views better than Steiner himself. '''] 00:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)'''

The articles should not be merged. They're both long already. At Misplaced Pages, subarticles are preferred for 'in-depth' descriptions of particular sub-topics. Definitely the biography of Steiner is more to the point in this article. The biography is valuable, and it's strange to propose a solution that would remove the biography here just to make room in this article for material already covered in the other article. ] 20:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

:Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Venado. &mdash; ] ] 22:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, welcome Venado. You're just in time to vote... LOL! '''] 00:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)'''

::Again, Steiner's biography is of very minor interest to the world. Much of what is here is already covered in multiple sub-articles about his initiatives. Most of what is on this page is redundant. '''] 23:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)'''

:::Just talking about the biography section here. Most of it would interest a lot of people. The discussion about his involvement in the Theosophical Society duplicates much from the subarticle. It should be revised. ] 00:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

::::LOL! OK, if you say so. I find it pretty boring personally, and believe it could be snappier and condensed without losing the main points which are, IMO, he was born, studied philosophy - eventually got his PhD, edited Goethe's scientific works - published Theory of Knowledge, wrote POF, joined the Theosophical society, got married, Pres of Theosophical Society in Germany, wrote Theosophy, KOW, OS, broke off from the TS and started Anthroposophical Society, remarried, etc. Meeting herb gatherers is the type of stuff that belongs in a book - not an encyclopedia entry. '''] 00:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)'''

:::::We know Pete. The only thing you think is interesting and should be included in the article is reams upon reams of quotations exposing Steiner's racism. That's not really what Misplaced Pages is about. &mdash; ] ] 14:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it IS what Misplaced Pages is about. Steiners own VIEWS are what Steiner was about and his VIEWS are what Misplaced Pages needs to examine - not whether he met an herb grower. So yes, Steiner's racism is absolutely relevant and far more important than all the puff-piece nonsense that is currently here. Steiner took a political stance, he started a religious movement, he started a school system, he motivated people. Of course his views are important - far more important than his father's work history. '''] 16:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)'''

:I urge you to learn more about Misplaced Pages's policy and mission. Please ask administrators. This is a biographical article. It is appropriate to describe Steiner's biography, whether superficially or in depth. It is also appropriate to describe the controversy around Steiner's views on race. It is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages to take a side on a controversy. &mdash; ] ] 17:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

==Edit Wars Starting Again==

Are we going to get this article locked up again over the Dutch commission? They're ALL ANTHROPOSOPHISTS. If you want to include the report, you have to say so. I'm pretty sure we've agreed to this. '''] 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)'''

:You started it by deleting a section. &mdash; ] ] 21:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:: Nope. The section is either going to be truthful or it's going to come out. Have a look at the Race and Ethnicity page - the Dutch Commission stuff is repeated there. It doesn't need to go in both articles - and when we merge the articles, it will be there. '''] 21:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)'''

:::There was no untruthful information. Sabotaging sections of articles because one item of information you'd like included is not there is inappropriate; work it out on the talk page. I support the information being included, however, now that a citation has been provided to support this (is this citation currently in the article, BTW? It should be.)

:::I do not support merging the articles, however; the section is already too long as it stands, by any standard whatsoever. We should be looking at condensing it to what Misplaced Pages recommends, a NPOV summary/overview with a link to the detailed article. ] 15:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Someone has just provided such a summary/overview; this was not done with my knowledge but I find it quite appropriate. ] 15:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

::::''"There was no untruthful information. Sabotaging sections of articles because one item of information you'd like included is not there is inappropriate"'' You've GOT to be kidding Harlan. "One item of information" - what insanity is this? THE DUTCH COMMISSION WAS COMPRISED EXCLUSIVELY OF ANTHROPOSOPHISTS. You can't really be a Waldorf teacher and be so dense, can you? It is the most significant item of information about the report. ''"work it out on the talk page"'' We've talked about this for weeks - you were involved in the discussions. Here's the bottom line - you will either include the fact that Anthroposophists comprised the commission, or (and if I were you I would consider this) remove the Dutch commission section completely. It is meaningless when the facts are presented. You do not get to hide the make-up of the commission (I'm talking more to the other slash-and-burn editors here). ''"I support the information being included, however, now that a citation has been provided to support this (is this citation currently in the article, BTW? It should be."'' Yes, the citation and a quote from it has been added to the article. This apparently struck some Steiner defenders the wrong way and they continue to yank it out. '''] 15:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)'''

"It is the most significant..." - To you, yes. Yet it is one piece of information in an article. It is sabotage to remove whole sections because they do not include your favorite piece of information. IF THE REPORT APPEARS, I SUPPORT INCLUDING THAT PIECE OF INFORMATION WITH A CITATION, PETE. But it's still sabotage to do what you did. ] 15:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

:No Harlan, not to me, to EVERYONE who reads this report. The bias of the commission - that they were all Anthroposophists, all followers of Steiner - is the most important piece of information to everyone. Please stop trying to hide this fact. I don't care how you characterize my edits. I think yours and some of the others who have edited this article have been dishonest. The attempted change of the wording to "Anthroposophical academics" for example - is not the same as saying "all Anthroposophists" - it's like saying someone is a "Jewish scholar" - it implies they are scholarly on the topic of Judaism, not that they are Jewish. So your sleight-of-hand is not going to work here Harlan. Tell it like it is or remove it completely. There are no other choices. '''] 15:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)'''

Pete, I'm getting tired of this. I haven't hidden the fact. I've asked you to document it. THIS IS NORMAL. You documented it. Someone else has changed the wording, not me. OK? There are several people in the world, Pete, not just YOU and NOT-YOU. I have said above that I agree with your wording now that you've documented the attribution. Your accusations are totally out of place. ] 16:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

:When you pasted in the report, after it was discussed for two weeks and no agreement arrived at, did you modify the paragraph at all to indicate that the commission was comprised entirely of Anthroposophists? No, you didn't. You say you agree with me, but no effort was made to make this simple change. '''] 17:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)'''

And you noticed it and made the change. Thank you for noticing what I missed. ] 00:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:OK, whatever Harlan. It seems a little hard to believe you "missed" it when we had discussed exactly this issue for two weeks prior to the unlocking of the articles - but at the risk of sounding EXTREMELY GULLIBLE, I'll consider the unlikely possibility that it was an honest mistake. So, on a different subject. How about if we lose the chalkboard drawing. It's impossible to see what it depicts and even enlarging it (which doesn't do much) doesn't show anything. Do you have something you really want to replace it with? Or can we just remove it and gain some much-needes space? '''] 00:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)'''

Pete, I myself am an anthroposophist, and anthroposophists agree that it is a matter of misunderstanding, not a matter of misinterpretation. Afterall, the sentence reads "Anthroposophists assert..."

Besides, understanding comes from full awareness, whereas interpretation from however you want to see it. But that's besides the point because, like I said, "Anthroposophists assert..." I will allow you to put a "citation needed" there, though, if you want to make the refrences even more encyclopedic.] 01:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:It doesn't work that way. You can't use yourself as a reference. I'm fully aware, and I understand Steiner, I studied Steiner for 15 years. It isn't my understanding that is at issue - it is my interpretation. I've changed the sentence back. If you want to provide a legitimate reference go ahead. If you insist on changing it back - I'll just delete the sentence. It's meaningless anyway. '''] 01:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)'''

==Please state your position==
*For a summary of the race issue with a link to the article ]
] 15:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, me ] 15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


*For an extensive discussion with a link to the article ]



*For a merger, incorporating the above article


==Race and Ethnicity==
The article currently states:

''Steiner believed that humanity is made up of individuals first and foremost, each of which exists sui generis: as a unique entity unto him- or herself, and that each individual passes through incarnations in changing settings. For Steiner, race and ethnicity are thus transient characteristics, not essential aspects of an individual. In addition, even in a given lifetime these are minor influences compared to more individual factors. Steiner also emphasized that race was rapidly losing any remaining significance for human development. One of his central principles was to battle racial prejudice; "any racial prejudice hinders me from looking into a person's soul".''

I don't believe this to be correct. I don't believe we are making it clear enough that when we say Steiner believed an individual passes through incarnations - that only some aspects of the individual pass from incarnation to incarnation (and the periods inbetween). The statement above makes no distinction between the individual who had incarnated in a physical body (and an etheric body - and a race - and had abstract thoughts and scientific thoughts that cannot be retained after death) and the "individual" Steiner describes as the "inner kernel of our being" (what some of us might call the soul or spirit) having impulses and habits and desires - the part that DOES reincarnate. When we discuss things like race, it is easy to incorrectly suggest that Steiner meant "individual" when he indeed meant "spirit". The statement above, about racial prejudice is correct - Steiner was attempting to look past the individual into the soul behind the individual. I would like to adjust the above paragraph to read as follows:

<blockquote>Steiner believed that humanity is made up of individual spirits first and foremost, each of which exists sui generis: as a unique entity unto him- or herself, and that each individual spirit passes through incarnations in changing settings. For Steiner, race and ethnicity are thus transient characteristics, not essential aspects of an individual spirit. In addition, even in a given lifetime these are minor influences compared to the "deeper being". Steiner also emphasized that race was rapidly losing any remaining significance for human development. One of his central principles was to battle racial prejudice; "any racial prejudice hinders me from looking into a person's soul".</blockquote> '''] 03:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)'''

:If someone has a better term than "individual spirit" - I'd be happy to use it. '''] 03:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)'''

Steiner nearly always uses the term "individual" (Individualitaet) when speaking about the incarnating being. He occasionally uses "soul-spirit", but this only when comparing it to the bodily-etheric. When speaking about human beings in their essential being, as in the quotes I have added to the references now, he also speaks about the individual. He was not a gnostic, i.e. he did not believe that the spirit was the true reality and the soul and body mere maya; he repeatedly emphasized that he was in fact a monist, i.e. he believed that spirit, soul and body were all interconnected revelations of the individual being. (See the added references in the article for detail.) I have tried to incorporate the distinction you are indicating here in a slightly different way,which I hope meets what you are trying to indicate. ] 10:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks Harlan - I hope you see my point. I'll have a look at what you've come up with. As I said, I was having trouble wording it right because Steiner didn't use the term "individual spirit". '''] 13:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)'''

== Articles ==

I have given a reference to Steiner's articles against anti-Semitism; they appear in the complete works, with exact page numbers given in the footnote in this article. Previously, when the article was locked, this documentation was on the talk page. That articles have not been translated is completely irrelevant to their existence. This is sufficient documentation by any standard. ] 10:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:The problem is not that the articles are not in English, and you know it. This is such despicable behavior, always hiding behind your false professorial manners. A reference for articles published in a journal includes the journal title, year, volume, and page numbers. The objection regarding a foreign language was in reference to the discussion on some other web site that supposedly discussed these articles. You've removed that, so that's not what this is about. The further objection is that EVEN if these articles APPEAR in a "journal devoted to combatting antisesmitism," this is classic "weasel words" definitely frowned on at wikipedia. It's being used to suggest Steiner was opposed to anti-semitism, yet the fact of these articles can't be used to show that. They probably DON'T show that - and my suspicion of this is further strengthened by the fact that you don't actually bother claiming that they do. That's exactly what weasel words are. This citation should be removed. We've discussed it at great length and your sticking it back in now, pretending none of that happened, violates good faith.] 11:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:One solution might be for you to quote some passages from these articles for the rest of us, if you think it's fair that they suggest he was writing in opposition to antisemitism. If we can see that they say what you suggest, others might agree to them. This shouldn't be a problem for you since you can read them in the original.] 11:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

::Diana, the only way to ensure discussion, that I have found, is to remove the reference (as you did originally). As long as the article remains in the form they prefer, editors tend to avoid discussion. I hope I'm wrong in this case. '''] 13:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)'''

Pete and Diana, this is aggressive and unfounded. Verification was requested. Two references have been provided, one to the original text - which is itself sufficient - and one to a citation that verifies this. This is all that is needed. I am not a translation service, nor does Misplaced Pages require translation of supportive documentation. See ]; in particular "there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation."

You can look at the table of contents <strike>, but you may need to first login to the site as a "Neuer Benutzer"; this is free</strike>. The article says that Steiner wrote six articles for the journal in question; the table of contents cites that they were indeed published in this journal. ] 15:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:Harlan, you are perhaps not understanding the issue here. I can write articles for Mothering magazine, that doesn't make me a mother. If your claim is that he wrote articles that appeared in a magazine about anti-semitism, that's one thing... if it's that this proves he was against anti-semitism, that's quite another thing - especially in the light of substantial information to the contrary. '''] 16:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)'''

The sentence in contention in the article states that Steiner "wrote articles for various journals, including a series for the Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus, a magazine devoted to combatting anti-semitism." I have documented this; it is a biographical fact. It does not, as you seem to think, assert a claim that this proves he is against anti-semitism. So yes, the article's claim here is simply that he wrote articles that appeared in the magazine.

Though this is not relevant to this particular part of the article, statements by him documented in the sub-article do prove that he was against anti-Semitism, however:
#He speaks of anti-Semitism being a "danger for Jews", but also "for non-Jews";
#he considers anti-Semitism a sign of twisted thinking, stupidity, inferiority of spirit and showing a lack of ability to make ethical judgments.<ref>Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1887-1901 (Collected essays) (GA 31), Dornach 1989, essays of 20 and 27 November 1901 and 1 September 1900.</ref>
#"It really doesn't matter whether someone is a Jew or a German...That's so obvious, that one is almost dumb saying it. How dumb then must someone be who says the opposite!"<ref>Steiner, GA31, p. 199</ref>

At the same time, his judgment of Judaism itself was complex. He seems to have classed all religious or cultural orientation to an ethnic or racial basis as out-dated, and brought Judaism as a key example of this, for example. And he also seriously underestimated the power of anti-Semitism. All this is also documented in the article about his views on race/ethnicity, as it should be. ] 18:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:Again Harlan: scoldings will not slow anyone down so I suggest you desist. Nobody is being "aggressive" in pointing out that this reference is not kosher. You write: "It does not, as you seem to think, assert a claim that this proves he is against anti-semitism. So yes, the article's claim here is simply that he wrote articles that appeared in the magazine." Yes, Harlan, that's the problem. (One of them.) That's what wikipedia calls "weasel words" and they're strongly discouraged. This couldn't be more transparent, Harlan: You probably don't even know what the actual articles say, and don't care. If you knew that they said something against antisemitism, you'd *quote that*. What on earth is stopping you if these articles contain Steiner speaking against antisemitism? But you know you can't possibly make such a claim. You're hoping that the suggestion he *wrote for this magazine* will suggest this in and of itself. It doesn't. That's weasely. It's poor scholarship, at best, and most likely outright dishonest. I strongly suspect you have no idea what those articles say. And please spare us: we all know the next thing you will write to be an accusation that I don't assume good faith. I don't think, however, that there's a requirement we go on assuming good faith from someone who's already violated it.] 20:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The ] policy is non-negotiable if you wish to edit here; any failure to do so is obnoxious and aggressive. In addition, assuming you know what others would do and must have read is always doubtful; here you are simply wrong. Finally, there is nothing weasely about the statement that Steiner wrote these articles for the magazine mentioned; it is simply factual. Look up the WP policy on weasel words. ] 20:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


:Harlan, you wrote:
# He speaks of anti-Semitism being a "danger for Jews", but also "for non-Jews";
# he considers anti-Semitism a sign of twisted thinking, stupidity, inferiority of spirit and showing a lack of ability to make ethical judgments.
# "It really doesn't matter whether someone is a Jew or a German...That's so obvious, that one is almost dumb saying it. How dumb then must someone be who says the opposite!"

:Putting these into context would ge a good idea Harlan. These are quotes I like to call "snippets" - taken out of context (as they always are) to make a point that is inaccurate (in these cases really the opposite of the point you are supposedly making). The fact that Steiner was in favor of assimilation rather than extermination doesn't make him less guilty of antisemitism. We've had lots of racist quotes here already. Do you really want the antisemitic quotes here too Harlan. That's fine with me - but I've been avoiding that whole issue. Since you want to make the claim that is opposite of the truth (yet again) we'll just do it your way. '''] 20:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)'''

::Oh, get over yourself, Harlan. The "assume good faith" policy does not apply to people who have *violated* good faith - obviously. What kind of idiots do you think the rest of us are? I think it's downright uncivil of you to act this way with other adults. It's like nursery school and you think you're the teacher. Talk about obnoxious. You call anybody who disagrees with you a bunch of pompous names. Okay - so you're implying clearly that you *have* read these articles. What is making it so difficult for you to provide some actual quotes, then - the stuff that would show whether there's a reason to believe these articles show Steiner speaking against antisemitism? And if they *don't* show that, then I think it's up to you to justify why this material is included at that point (or any point) in the article. What is the point of referencing the material at all? Any idiot can see it's an apology-in-advance for the criticisms, the suggestions that Steiner *himself* was an antisemite, that are going to appear later in the article. I did look up the policy on weasel words, Harlan, and I suspect (ooh, naughty of me) that you did too. This is the most classic conceivable case. In fact, I may submit it as a good example for wikipedia to use to illustrate the policy.

::Weaseling is when you don't have anything that will really make your case; so you stick in something that doesn't really quite do it but sounds, offhand, like it might. You can't, therefore, explicitly claim that it does, but since it's kinda related you hope nobody will notice. And if somebody does complain, you protest that you "never said that anyway," and technically, you're right - but ethically, it's a bit of a scummy trick.] 20:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What the bleep are you talking about? What case? The passage mentions Steiner's early articles; it is not trying to make a case for anything. You are the one projecting all sorts of things here, claiming I or the article said or is trying to say things that neither is saying and then objecting when it is pointed out that it and I are not saying that. Ethically, this is surely a scummy trick, if it is a trick. Why don't you settle down? ] 01:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually, it's the best possible example because in this case - the material being cited is in a foreign language. '''] 23:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)'''

Horrors! The material is in a foreign language! Why? Because the reference is to Steiner's writings, and he had the temerity to write in a foreign language. Highly suspicious, you think? ] 01:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

:::{Sigh} OK Harlan... again, if you insist... here's an article that I will reference that discusses the very articles you mention. - It isn't pretty and in fact shows that indeed Steiner was an extreme nationalist and held an antisemitic political view. Here's a passage from the article: <blockquote>"Steiner consorted with notoriously bitter antisemites and was by his own account on entirely friendly terms with them. The passages in Mein Lebensgang on his relationship with Heinrich von Treitschke, for example, are straightforwardly admiring of this towering figure on the German right, who was the foremost intellectual ally of militant anti-Semitism (Treitschke coined the Nazi slogan "The Jews are our misfortune"). Steiner never so much as mentions Treitschke's infamous stance on the "Jewish question." The same is true of Steiner's appraisals of Haeckel and Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, among others. In fact it is abundantly clear from Steiner's own writings on the subject that he had an extremely rudimentary understanding of anti-Semitism and that he was himself beholden to a wide variety of antisemitic stereotypes, which he frequently broadcast to his followers.11) On more than one occasion he expressed the wish "that Jewry as a people would simply cease to exist" (Steiner, Geschichte der Menschheit, Dornach 1968, p. 189 and elsewhere). This wish was consistent with Steiner's categorical rejection of the Jewish people's right to existence: "Jewry as such has long since outlived its time; it has no more justification within the modern life of peoples, and the fact that it continues to exist is a mistake of world history whose consequences are unavoidable. We do not mean the forms of the Jewish religion alone, but above all the spirit of Jewry, the Jewish way of thinking." (Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Literatur, GA 32, p. 152)"</blockquote>
:::Again, have it your way... I'll put this reference in tomorrow sometime. '''] 03:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)'''

#The articles I mentioned, in the journal against anti-Semitism, are collected in GA31. None of these are referenced in the above quote; you are mistaken here.
#Steiner was friends with and/or acquainted with an amazing range of people, from wildly left-wing anarchists such as MacKay (a friend) to Treitschke (a distant acquaintance). He had a hostile relationship with Förster-Nietzsche (see his autobiography).
#The quoted article is correct that he saw the Jewish religion and "way of thinking" - by which he seems to have meant religion that prescribed external laws of behavior rather than a path of inner transformation - as outdated, and that he severely underestimated anti-Semitism. This is rightfully seen as problematic, especially in a historical retrospect that can see how anti-Semitism became a terrifyingly powerful force in Germany some 20-30 years after his comments disparaging it.
#He was nevertheless a vocal opponent of anti-Semitism and of German nationalism; in an article that is drawn from the journal in question, he spoke about Adolf Bartels, a German nationalist as follows: "It wouldn't occur to me to equate Mr. Bartels with the banal factionalists who invented the 'German man' in order to have as euphonious a phrase as possible to justify their anti-Semitism....But one thing seems certain to me: Bartels remarks about the 'German man' originate from the same source as the senseless prating of the anti-Semites."(Mitteilungen aus dem Verein zur Abwehr des Antisemitismus Nr. 37, 11 Sept. 1901)
#Or: "There was never a 'Jewish question for me....as part of Austria's national student body became anti-Semitic, this appeared to me as a mockery of all the cultural achievements of modernity. I have never been able to judge a person on the basis of anything but the individual, personal characteristics that I became acquainted with in that person....I have never been able to see anything in anti-Semitism but a view that indicates the mental inferiority, deficient ethical judgement and poor taste of those who hold it."(GA31, pp. 278ff)

I am not trying to avoid the complexity of his position, but you are vastly oversimplifying it by ignoring his numerous comments directed against anti-Semisitism and anti-Semites. ] 09:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

::I'm actually trying to avoid the whole issue here Harlan. Your insistence in trying to imply Steiner was a champion against anti-semitism is what's bringing this discussion here. He definitely was not. We can open up this can of worms if you like - I personally would rather ignore it and simply take out the suggestion that Steiner opposed anti-semitism. Again, it's your call. '''] 16:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)'''

:I have checked a number of things the author of the article, that Pete mentions, writes against the original published sources he refers to as alleged support of what he writes. This has shown that he repeatedly is completely unreliable in relation to the sources he refers to and has made me completely lose confidence in the truthfulness of ANYTHING he writes down to the last comma regarding anthroposophy until I personally have checked the sources he refers to. The turned up already when checking the very first paragraph of his first article as solo author on anthroposophy against the source it refers to.

:For a comparison of what the author writes as "The passages in Mein Lebensgang on his relationship with '''Heinrich von Treitschke''', for example, are straightforwardly admiring of this towering figure on the German right, who was the foremost intellectual ally of militant anti-Semitism (Treitschke coined the Nazi slogan "The Jews are our misfortune")." against the actual source it refers to as "support" for what he writes, , see . Was Steiner in his autobiography "straightforwardly admiring of Treitschke" as a person or as a writer this author writes?

:
::"Men like Treitschke, who stick so fast in their own personalities, can make an impression on other men only when the personal element is at the same time both significant and also interwoven deeply with the things they are setting forth. This was true of Treitschke. When he spoke of something historical, he discoursed as if everything were in the present and he were at hand with all his pleasure and all his displeasure. One listened to the man, one received the impression of the personal in unmitigated strength; but one gained no relation to the content of what he said."

:For another comment on Steiner's view of Treitschke, see by Daniel Hindes. Or for some comments on Steiner as alleged anti-Semite. For some comments on the last quote from Steiner, see . It shows that quoted statement was made in the historical context of the late Jewish Enlightenment ], that like the Enlightenment in general, considered religion -- in the case of the Haskalah, the Mosaic religion -- to be an outdated basis for human culture, thinking and action. On this, the Russian Zionist Leo Pinsker, wrote in 1882 in his book Autoemancipation wrote, expressing himself in much stronger words than Steiner, that in the Jews, the world could observe a people who resembled a living dead.

:For a description of Steiner's view of Jewry, see , by Lorenzo Ravagli, or by Uwe Werner, author on the most thorough work on the issue ("Anthroposophy in the Time of Nazi Germany", Verlag R. Oldenberg, Munich, 1999.).

:It shows that the author mentioned by Pete does not qualify as a ] for anything in an article at Misplaced Pages. Insertion of anything based on him in an article at Misplaced Pages would violate Misplaced Pages requirements on ]s. '''--] 12:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)'''

::Sune, nobody really cares if you think an author you don't like is "unreliable" - you've cried "wolf" too many times. That source will be used here over your objections. You seem to think EVERYBODY who doesn't represent your POV must be "unreliable". Sorry to be so blunt, but that's nonsense, once again, and not worth the effort to address your objections that are summarized in links to your own website. '''] 16:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)'''

:::On "You seem to think EVERYBODY who doesn't represent your POV must be "unreliable".". No, I think people who write things that are not supported by the sources they refer to as alleged support for what they write are unreliable. It's very simple. Your statement that you do not care about this contradicts the strife by Misplaced Pages to only use reliable sources, and - if you implement it - would violate it. '''--] 16:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)'''

::::''"No, I think people who write things that are not supported by the sources they refer to as alleged support for what they write are unreliable."'' Um... that would be YOU. Thanks for making my case. '''] 16:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)'''

On your: "you've cried "wolf" too many times". You mean my description of the WC as a site that publishes argumentation characteristic of criticism-hate type of groups, like its publication of an "Anthroposophical World Conspiracy" myth, a "Protocol of Steiner" myth and allegations of the type that by opposing to immunization and exposing children to child diseases, in discussions described by Diana as "life threatening illnesses"? (For the argumentation by and answer on this to DianaW (later on the WC-board) see ).

At the you four days ago asked an admin to look at and take action against this. (For some reason you seemed to forget my first more detailed description of the site of the WC in a discussion at Misplaced Pages.) In an , an Admin (]) has answered that he or she will take no action on the basis of what you write, diplomatically describing the issue as a not a black or white one, that is, that it is not obvious that my description of the the WC is untrue, even based on the links you try to give in support of this, and leaves it at that.

On the basis of this, you would not consider the decision by the admin to be a judgement that your "Look, a wolf!" to be not that founded? '''--] 17:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)'''

::Of course not. I know your writings to be dishonest, deceptive and untruthful... And I know your claims of "hate group" are outright lies. There are certainly other administrators who will take this issue more seriously. In the mean time - I hope you are comfortable in the knowledge that you have made a fool of yourself and have basically damaged the credibility of Anthroposophists in general with your false and ridiculous claims. You hurt Anthroposophy and the Waldorf movement much more than you help it - and many Anthroposophists agree with me. '''] 23:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)'''

:::Is ] a criticism-hate type of group? Check the on the history and criticism of the group, by others, who had to deal with it locally when it started. '''] 13:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)'''

== antisemitism ==

this leads directly to an article that steiner wrote for the mentioned magazine. the first sentences translate (roughly) as 'Antisemitism is not particulary rich in original thoughts, not even phrases and slogans. Again and again one has to listen to the same old platitudes when followers of this 'philosophy' express their dull emotions.'

he goes on in the article to criticise antisemitic statements by known intellectuals of his day such as ] and ].
in the part of the article he describes how people steiner knew in his days as a student in vienna turned from democratic and liberal thinkers who'd talk about humanity, freedom and the dignity of man into nationalist antisemites, who's company began to embarass him.
if in doubt find someone who understands german. these articles show somebody speaking out against antisemitism clearly and courageously. i still find it perfectly possible that steiner also said things that would be considered antisemitic elsewhere. as with the racism it is a little more complicated, just putting on a label 'racist' or 'antisemite' will not do. ] 12:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

:Trueblood, you're right - this is complex. I'm not trying to put the label of "antisemite" on Steiner. I never have. With regard to what you say above, certainly someone can be a racist and still denounce the actions of the KKK. Denouncing some of the worst antisemites does not excuse Steiner from his own antisemitism. It's a can of worms that will certainly require the spawning of a new article discussing Steiner and Antisemitism if we go down this slippery slope. So what I am suggesting is that we stop trying to suggest that Steiner was a champion for the Jewish people (he wasn't) and leave it at that. When people try to claim that Steiner was against antisemitism, they are begging for material to show up here that shows exactly the opposite. And there is plenty of material that does this. '''] 16:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)'''
::well, i repeat myself at risk of being rude, he was on several occasions speaking out against antisemitism clearly and courageously. i would exactly claim that what you said: he was against antisemitism.] 17:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Don't worry about being rude - I'm not as sensitive about these things as some people. Anyway, we can have this discussion if you like - there is lots and lots of information documenting Steiner's anti-semitic position - and really only snippets that suggest otherwise. So you think the article is the best place to have this battle? '''] 18:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)'''

no, not just snippets, 6 whole articles in a magazine that was completely devoted to fighting antisemitism, i am sorry i don't have the time to translate them all for you. but that you of all people talk about snippets, quotes taken of context, that just takes the bisquit. again i don't feel competent to jugde about the rest, but i think it was criticised by you and diana that the article suggested that steiner spoke out against antisemitism. you were doubtful if he might have talked about something else. he did not. he talked about antisemitism and denounced it. now you just speak mysteriously about your antisemitic snippets. let's both have a look again what you said to hgilbert earlier.] 18:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

::::I will look for translations of the articles. Fair enough? But a quick peek on the web reveals that the ONLY people who are suggesting Steiner opposed antisemitism are Anthroposophists. No historians, no non-biased persons that I can find. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. Have you got a link to a non-Anthroposophist who makes this claim? I'll keep looking - but I can tell you, sites like Defending Steiner, Waldorf Answers and TheBee and stuff like that aren't going to convince me. So fine - we can leave in the reference to the articles you say suggest Steiner was an opponent of antisemitism, and I'll present the case that he promoted the opposite. It doesn't matter that much to me. '''] 18:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)'''

Steiner was an extreme assimilationist regarding the Jewish people, as were many people of his time, including many of Jewish heritage (e.g. the composer Felix Mendelssohn!) His own writings make this very clear, as they also make clear that he spoke against anti-Semitism and racism time and time again.

By the way, your own primary source, P.S., is not a historian, nor is he unbiased by any stretch of the imagination. Nor are founding members of the Skeptical Humanists. Come off your high horse; look down and you'll notice it's a braying donkey. ] 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

::You're the one braying here, not me. Are you joining Sune in the attempted defamation campaign? Big surprise. Nobody claimed ANYONE was unbiased. But again, claims excusing Steiner have to come from somewhere other than Anthroposophists. Otherwise, they are more of the same bull. Your house of cards is tumbling down Harlan, and your revisionist history along with it. You don't need to tell me Steiner was an assimilationist - I've explained that to you many times right here. He wanted and expected the Jews to dissolve - he didn't like their "Jewishness". I don't need history lessons about this from you and other revisionists. In case you haven't noticed, my high-horse doesn't care for your bull. '''] 23:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)'''

:no, pete, not fair enough. quick peeks on the web are not enough, just get somebody who understands german, you were wrong but now it does not matter much to you. and tell me again, about this snippet theory of yours. were you indicating that quotes taken out off there context don't tell much? and then the dutch commission's position has to be evaluated but this peter staudenmeyer person does not.
i wish you could come up with some real objective historian or journalist writing in a real magazine or newspaper, not some cranky antireligious fanzine, can't be so difficult. but all your ranting has not change a little bit to this article in terms of making it more neutral. you just managed to get on some people's nerves bigtime. ] 22:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - quick peeks are not enough. Reference the articles then - not a table of contents to them. Let's see the articles themselves and I'll get them translated. Meanwhile, here are some I have tried to translate using Google. Have a peek:

http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drudolf%2Bsteiner%2Bantisemitism%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN
http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-2.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drudolf%2Bsteiner%2Bantisemitism%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN
http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-4.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drudolf%2Bsteiner%2Bantisemitism%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN
http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-5.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drudolf%2Bsteiner%2Bantisemitism%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN
http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-6.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drudolf%2Bsteiner%2Bantisemitism%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN
http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-7.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Drudolf%2Bsteiner%2Bantisemitism%26start%3D90%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

I'm taking this very seriously - but the automatic translator doesn't do a very good job. I will continue to look into this - but maybe you would like to read these in German.

http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner.htm
http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-2.htm
http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-4.htm
http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-5.htm
http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-6.htm
http://www.hagalil.com/antisemitismus/deutschland/steiner-7.htm

'''] 23:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)'''

when you say this:
"his type of dishonesty doesn't seem to bother these people and is, as some of us know, representative of Anthroposophists and Waldorf in general. This type of dishonesty is what critics of Waldorf continue to claim exists - and it is being demonstrated here - right before our eyes. Good job guys!!!"
are you actually talking to me?

because you come here, make all these wild claims, insult people, scream 'bias', but all the evidence you can come with, are people affiliated with PLANS or sceptical organizations, that seems to show cultish behavior themselves. you don't have any unbiased references, do you. all this PLANS stuff is equally unconvincing as defending steiner or americans 4 waldorf ... and then you talk about your experiences with 'these people'. you are so blind that you don't notice that the people editing here have quite different opinions. if they don't agree with you they are part of this anthro conspiracy, part of 'these people'. man you've got personal issues. but nobody here is interested in that. this is not the place to conduct a personal vendetta. stop dragging in you personal business, stop being impolite, stubborn to the degree of fanaticism. ] 22:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

:I'm sorry you see it this way - but you couldn't be more wrong. "People affiliated with PLANS"? Who would that be? What reference have I produced by someone affiliated with PLANS? And who gets to decide who is "affiliated" with PLANS? You? PLANS is an organization just like the Anthroposophical Society - so if you are suggesting that any of my references belong to the organization PLANS, you are mistaken. If you want to make loose associations in order to discredit people - that's something you can do to amuse yourself - but it doesn't amuse me and I suspect most people reading this are intelligent enough to see right through it. So what PLANS stuff are you talking about? It seems you may be the one falsifying associations here. Nobody I have referenced is from PLANS. So then you want to include all "sceptics" - which would be anyone who doesn't buy into Steiner's nonsense - right? I mean, if they don't believe it, they certainly must be skeptical about it - right? So again, you've got nothing here - just more smoke and mirrors trying to discredit me. The house of cards is in jeopardy - it may only take a little more smoke to knock it down. The only thing holding it up is the Commission of Anthroposophists - and mysterious articles in German. Let's see how long those will keep things together for you. '''] 23:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)'''
plans might be an organization like the anthroposophical society. but i seem to remember to have read something about 40 members. did you say something about a figure of 50000 anthroposophists? so an anthro could have much better reason for saying something general about 'these people' when speaking about plans.
peter staudenmaier participates at discussions at a plans online forum does he not, in my book that could pass for affiliated. with sceptics i mean organized sceptics. don't be so slow, you know what i mean. i'd consider myself a sceptic in the general sence of the word. but i am sceptical but organized sceptics. take a peek at ], it sums it up.
but your new german links are different. they are in depth, and present a differentiated view. put them in.] 10:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

::''"peter staudenmaier participates at discussions at a plans online forum does he not, in my book that could pass for affiliated."'' I get that "affiliated" to you means you can paste that label on whoever you please. So, let me see - here from our group, of the people I actually know, Harlan Gilbert (HGilbert) must also be affiliated with PLANS, and Sune Nordwall (TheBee) too is affiliated with PLANS. Correct? Because participation on a discussion list means an affiliation to YOU. That makes sense since you apparently agree to affiliate Steiner with opposition to antisemitism because he wrote articles for a magazine that opposed antisemitism. Boy, I'd hate to think of all the lists I've posted on that I might be "affiliated" with - by YOU. So, anyone who is critical of Waldorf or Steiner, according to you, and who has participated on a list that is critical of Waldorf or Steiner must be affiliated with the organization that sponsors that list. Incredible. ''"with sceptics i mean organized sceptics. don't be so slow, you know what i mean. i'd consider myself a sceptic in the general sence of the word. but i am sceptical but organized sceptics."
''
::"Organized sceptics"? They don't get to have a say here why? That's a lot of what organized skeptics do, debunk nonsense - and that they turned their attention to Steiner people who claim no racism and no antisemitism in Steiner's works is pretty natural. They aren't skeptical of ALL claims of ALL people who opposed racism or antisemitism. Those are valid POV's because, well... Steiner was a racist and an antisemite, AND skeptics don't make up Steiner's own society. We're not talking about an anti-Steiner group, we are talking about people who are skeptical, and sometimes they are organized in groups, and have identified Steiner as something to be skeptical about. I don't see that skeptics are skeptical about Thomas Edison and his wacky ideas about electricity. Skeptics look to challenge something that is skeptical. Re the articles, I won't be putting them in until I have them translated because, well, I'd like to know what they say before referencing them. But I'm quite sure I will be putting them in eventually. Thanks. '''] 15:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)'''

== Claims ==

Pete: a little summary of the last developments:
* You and Diana denied that Steiner had written articles in the Journal of an organization opposing anti-Semitism; you claimed that anyone putting a statement to this effect in the article was "dishonest", in bad faith, and a host of other accusations. You now have been shown that he had; in fact, your accusations were totally out of order.
* Then you and Diana claimed that the wording used "weasel words"; the wording was quoted and you were asked to find any ambiguous or uncited wording. You could not for there are no ambiguous words, everything claimed is cited.
* Then you claimed that the statement in the article somehow implied that Steiner's articles in question were against anti-Semitism - when it just stated that he had written the articles. This was, according to you, completely false, again a breach of good faith, more baseless accusations. In reality, however, it is not in the wording - you could find nothing there - but in the fact that he wrote those articles that this implication may be found. The fact is a fact, however. Now I've quoted from one of the articles and there is a link provided by another user to a copy of a whole other article, both of which prove that the articles are in fact against anti-Semitism; any inference that the articles were against anti-Semitism - if a user did in fact draw this - would be completely justified because the articles are of course against anti-Semitism. All of your accusations are false.
* Finally, you continue to employ these accusations though all of them are totally baseless and have been proved so. You have provided no evidence of any kind throughout about the articles in question. All of your claims have been disproved. Please withdraw them or show evidence - and the fact that you can't read German is not evidence of anything but the fact that you've not read what we're talking about. ] 22:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Harlan, you're not often right, but you're wrong again:
''* You and Diana denied that Steiner had written articles in the Journal of an organization opposing anti-Semitism; you claimed that anyone putting a statement to this effect in the article was "dishonest", in bad faith, and a host of other accusations. You now have been shown that he had; in fact, your accusations were totally out of order.'' Nope. Diana pointed out that you hadn't referenced the articles themselves - you referenced a table of contents that said the articles existed. As a professional editor, Diana pointed out to you that this does not constitute a proper reference. You still haven't provided the articles as a reference - so this is definitely not out of order.

''* Then you and Diana claimed that the wording used "weasel words"; the wording was quoted and you were asked to find any ambiguous or uncited wording. You could not for there are no ambiguous words, everything claimed is cited.'' Again, you are wrong. The ambiguity is in the improper reference itself as I noted above. You still don't get it apparently.

''* Then you claimed that the statement in the article somehow implied that Steiner's articles in question were against anti-Semitism - when it just stated that he had written the articles. This was, according to you, completely false, again a breach of good faith, more baseless accusations. In reality, however, it is not in the wording - you could find nothing there - but in the fact that he wrote those articles that this implication may be found. The fact is a fact, however. Now I've quoted from one of the articles and there is a link provided by another user to a copy of a whole other article, both of which prove that the articles are in fact against anti-Semitism; any inference that the articles were against anti-Semitism - if a user did in fact draw this - would be completely justified because the articles are of course against anti-Semitism. All of your accusations are false.'' I've discovered in your recent comments that your idea of "anti-semitism" is more like "extermination". Assimilation is anti-semitism Harlan. Steiner wanted the Jews to disappear - he wanted the Jewish culture to disappear. That he didn't side with the people who wanted to exterminate the Jews does not make him a champion against anti-semitism. {sigh}

''* Finally, you continue to employ these accusations though all of them are totally baseless and have been proved so. You have provided no evidence of any kind throughout about the articles in question. All of your claims have been disproved. Please withdraw them or show evidence - and the fact that you can't read German is not evidence of anything but the fact that you've not read what we're talking about.'' No, I think I'll hold off on that. Your quote is a "snippet". I'll start by having the articles translated - I know someone who might be able to do this for me. Then, I'll see if, as I suspect, they talk about assimilation - I would, of course, expect them to as that's what Steiner promoted. But if they don't (highly doubtful), I will at least know what THOSE SPECIFIC ARTICLES talk about and will be in a better position to produce evidence to refute them - because, after all, Steiner WAS antisemitic. In and of themselves, six articles don't change or excuse a lifetime of antisemitism anyway, but I'll have a look at them. That you think my position is baseless should make for some interesting discussions here Harlan. I'm glad you think you can defend your position. I can't wait. '''] 23:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)'''

==Steiner against anti-Semitism==
:PeteK: "In and of themselves, six articles don't change or excuse a lifetime of antisemitism anyway, but I'll have a look at them."

:"... a lifetime of antisemitism"?
:* In 1881, at age 20, Steiner condemned the philosophy of Eugene Dühring, one of the most prominent German anti-Semites of his time, who argued for the physical annihilation of the Jews, as "barbarian nonsense". Rudolf Steiner: Briefe I (Letters I), pp. 44-5. (GA 38)
:* Steiner also expressed his vehement opposition in the 1890s (during his 30s) to what he described as the “outrageous excesses of the anti-Semites”, and he denounced the “raging anti-Semites” as enemies of human rights. Rudolf Steiner: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1897-1901 (Collected Essays on Cultural History and Current Events), pp. 198-9. (GA 31).
:* His criticism of anti-Semites as enemies of human rights indicates that he fully supported the complete legal, social and political equality of Jews in the same way as for everyone else, as the only solution to what at the time wass called the “Jewish question” (also by Theodor Herzl in 1891, the main initiator of political Zionism). The achievement of equality was something that only in stages was becoming a reality in large parts of Europe during the second part of the 19th century.
:* At 36, he wrote:
::"Value should be attached solely to the mutual exchange between individuals. It is irrelevant whether someone is a Jew or a German ... This is so obvious that one feels stupid even putting it into words. So how stupid must one be to assert the opposite!". Rudolf Steiner: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1887-1901 (Collected essays) September 1897. (GA 31).
:* As an , Steiner again criticized the anti-Semitism of the time, writing (at 39) in 1900:
::"I have never been able to see anti-Semitism as anything except a view that indicates in those who hold it an inferiority of spirit, a lack of ability to make ethical judgments and an insipidness , that is a blow in the face for every person with a normal way of thinking.". Rudolf Steiner: Review of the novel Ahasver by Robert Jaffé. In: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1897-1901 (Collected Essays on Cultural History and Current Events), pp. 378-9. (GA 31).

:For more on the issue, see an .

:It does not quite support what you write. '''--] 09:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)'''

Latest revision as of 07:26, 13 August 2024

? view · edit Frequently asked questions

The main points of this FAQ (Talk:Rudolf Steiner#FAQ) can be summarized as:

More detail is given on this point, below.

To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Most people who are cited in the article are not spiritual scientists and are most likely materialists or theologically orthodox Christian believers. Isn't this article biased? A1: Our policies on Misplaced Pages, in particular WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, require us to provide coverage to views based on their prominence within reliable sources, and we must reflect the opinion of the scientific community and of the scholarly community (mainstream academia) as accurately as possible.

You should understand that, by its very nature, Misplaced Pages offers absolutely no remedy against citing mainstream scholarly works. Clearly expressed at by a Waldorf teacher that The article references peer-reviewed, largely academic sources, the opposite of propaganda.

Further information: Western esotericism § Emic and etic divisions Past discussions References
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rudolf Steiner article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 15 days 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Science and Academia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconAlternative views Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconArchitecture High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDisability
WikiProject iconRudolf Steiner is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability
WikiProject iconEducation Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOccult Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Philosophers / Epistemology / Science / Continental Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Philosophers
Taskforce icon
Epistemology
Taskforce icon
Philosophy of science
Taskforce icon
Continental philosophy
WikiProject iconReligion: New religious movements Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSpirituality Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAustria High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGermany Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSwitzerland Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Too many citations for any given sentence

See WP:citekill; we shouldn't have large numbers of citations for any single sentence. 2-3 citations should suffice normally. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's a response to people claiming at this talk page that it would be somehow doubtful that the mainstream academic POV is that Steiner was a pseudoscientist pur sang. They did not seem to be content with just four or five citations.
And there are Wikipedians willing to argue that Anthroposophy isn't a religion, although I WP:CITED more than 50 scholars endorsing that it is (see Talk:Anthroposophy#List of many).
I had to argue with people who denied these are the mainstream academic views unless one cites at least two dozens scholars. See the archives of this talk page and Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 63#Need some help on Anthroposophy and its related articles, particularly Waldorf education, Anthroposophic medicine, and Biodynamic agriculture. So, yup, there are so many citations because such pro-Anthroposophy group of editors (see the cited FTN topic) either honestly did not know how mainstream science and mainstream academia view Anthroposophy, or at least pretended they didn't.
They denied that Rudolf Steiner is a pseudoscientist, they denied he is a pseudohistorian, they denied that Anthroposophy is a religion—despite these facts being print-published in reputable sources for more than seventy years, and still published in reasonably recent WP:RS.
While I can see the reason for the second {{overcite}}, I can't see the reason for the first one. Solved. I do notice that Misplaced Pages:Citation overkill is against many citations (i.e. the numbers in superscript), not against many reliable sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything really standing out in the current version at least for excessive foot notes (don't think I saw more than 3). That said, if there's ever a sparing need for many references in one footnote, there's always multiref templates. KoA (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

First marriage

His first marriage ended in divorce in June 1904, according to Dutch Misplaced Pages, citing (Lindenberg 2011:356; Zander 2007:241).

The only thing that is doubtful is separation (without divorce) vs. divorce. My German is not good enough for such nuances. E.g. religious Dutchies get formally separated instead of divorcing, since their religion does not allow them to divorce.

Reason? His second wife moved in his home, while he was married to his first wife. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Schizophrenic

Now we have two psychiatrists who have diagnosed Rudolf Steiner with schizophrenia. Unlike (I presume) Wolfgang Treher, C.G. Jung actually met Rudolf Steiner, not to speak that Jung was much more famous than Treher. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

And yet somehow the man managed to write books, lead and develop a community, a schooling system, and create architectural masterpieces. Stupid. Project Apollo (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Some psychiatrists believe that Gurus are unmedicated mild schizophrenics in a constant psychosis, I can also say the same exact thing here. You shout words that are true, but again, it has little to do with the article, and the situation here. Fadix 18:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Price, John S; Stevens, Anthony (1998). "The Human Male Socialization Strategy Set". Evolution and Human Behavior. 19 (1). Elsevier BV: 57–70. doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(97)00105-0. ISSN 1090-5138. Many studies of cults and revitalization movements have noted that the leaders are susceptible both to auditory hallucinations and sudden changes in beliefs. The schizotype, we suggest, is someone who has the capacity to shed the commonly held and socially determined world view of his natal group, and to create a unique and arbitrary world view of his own, into which he may indoctrinate others and become a prophet, or fail to indoctrinate others and become a psychotic patient.
Besides, if Steiner had freedom of speech, so did Treher and Jung. All of them wrote opinions which are germane to this article. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Besides, we don't tell that what Treher and Jung claimed would be true or false, we just state they made such claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Univocality

In respect to the claims about Steiner's Docetism, Adoptionism, Nestorianism, and Gnosticism: I don't believe in the univocality of the Bible, why I would believe in the univocality of mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP? tgeorgescu (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

NOT gnostic

id suggest removing this introductory statement that Steiner was influenced by Gnosticism as it's too speculative. Citing academic opinions on the nature of Steiner's work isn't the same as reading the words from the man himself. Anthroposophy is the study of man and the cosmos - it's more aligned to Hermeticism than it is to gnosticism as gnosticism is a faith based system, whereas Anthroposophy is a scientific examination (whether people accept it to be or not). He does not focus on the idea of a Demiurge, but utilizes the belief systems and names of and in multiple religions.

Here is a quote from Steiner: "... And if people who venture to judge of Anthroposophy to-day, would take the trouble to observe these things, they would not fall into the calumny of confusing Anthroposophy with what is really only a dishing up of ancient Gnosticism, or similar things." - Feb 06, 1921, public lecture

Project Apollo (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The fact he is influenced by gnosticism is hardly speculative and clearly well cited given that you had to remove five wp:RELIABLESOURCES supporting the claim—blindlynx 01:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Project Apollo, see especially Was Steiner a Gnostic? Yes and no. which is a verbatim quote inside our article. See also the quote below it. It's a complicated matter, and cannot be answered simplistically.
To delve into terminology, "Gnostic" means "one who knows," rather than "one who believes." So, Anthroposophy is a scientific examination does not exactly help your argument that Steiner isn't Gnostic.
Hermeticism, Gnosticism, and Rosicrucianism are not mutually exclusive terms. Also, you say it like it can be only black or white, while in fact there are nuances.
So, to answer the charge, Anthroposophy is not only a dishing up of ancient Gnosticism, but it is certainly influenced by Ancient Gnosticism. I mean, Steiner did not take everything from Gnosticism at face value, but was certainly influenced by it (to the extent it was known in Steiner's time).
Either he was a full-blown Gnostic, or he was no Gnostic at all is a false dilemma. Ancient Gnosticism means a bewildering variety of sects and religious beliefs, to the extent that some scholars have questioned if speaking of Ancient Gnosticism has any meaning at all. I don't know if Steiner knew that, but present-day scholars know it full well.
Steiner being influenced by Gnosticism has been described based upon at least 13 WP:RS, several of them being written by full professors who are experts in this field. What about the Catholic Church, what made them decide that Anthroposophy is a neognostic heresy? I did not analyze their statements, but two elements are obvious: reincarnation and Steiner's Christology, plus a suggestion that the Holy Trinity does not mean the seven Elohim. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
If I wanted to smear Steiner as a Gnostic, why did I WP:CITE two WP:RS which say that's only half-true? tgeorgescu (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Rudolf Steiner's official journal was called Lucifer Gnosis. My emphasis is not upon Lucifer, like that of theological prudes, but upon Gnosis. This is at least a token he moved inside (neo)Gnostic circles. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
So, was he a Gnostic? The answer is neither yes nor no: he was schooled in Gnosticism and he was eclectic. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Categories: