Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

[findingblanks]

"It is that "setting aside" which is so problematic..."

Well, from two direct messages I have received in the last 33 minutes, I can tell you that not everybody interpreted my 'setting aside' as you do. Again, my job is to keep noticing how and why you make that kind of interpretation and try to communicate better. But just know this; I take as much blame as necessary for not making it clear to you why 'setting aside' wasn't how you took it. But you may or may not see that there were at least three other ways you could have understood it. I can't go down rabbit holes each time you tell me why I'm dense and missing the point. I'll keep bringing up Steiner's direct words, examples and how they perfectly match my request. And I'll try to rhythmically bring your statements in touch with Steiner's. I'm just the middle man, so to speak.

If we can set that aside for the moment, great. If not, we'll go from wherever you are.

[findingblanks]

"You are not trying to do phenomenology, which starts with givens of our experience, i.e. Thinking activity in relation to perceptions."

You are a smart person. If you've written an article for one of the Anthroposophical journals in which you criticize Steiner for this, I'd love to read it. Like I said, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you've memorized the five or six spots in his early epistemology when he goes out of his way to say that 'this is clear' to anybody paying attention. The 'this' he refers to is exactly where I'm starting. Of course: it's on me for not making you see this. That's sort of true!

[SanteriSatama]

This is exactly the same thing I was criticizing before with FB... you are not trying to do phenomenology, which starts with givens of our experience, i.e. Thinking activity in relation to perceptions (visual or otherwise). You want to get rid of that given of our experience from consideration and then say we are "empirically" deriving results. That should remind you of what other philosophers do, namely the materialists and dualists, who think good science can be done by getting rid of the "subject" from consideration and only considering the "object". In our experience, we know this cannot ever be done, so the approach can only lead to flawed conclusions about the essence of what we experience.

I'm genuinely offended. You project to me something I have not said nor intended ("want to get rid of"). After you first give a normative definition of phenomenology.

Why do you oppose empirical and and comparative phenomenology? Is quality and experience of thinking a normative 'should', thinking and experiencing only as defined and prescripted by somebody, anybody who wrote a book?????

[AshvinP]

"It is that "setting aside" which is so problematic..."

Well, from two direct messages I have received in the last 33 minutes, I can tell you that not everybody interpreted my 'setting aside' as you do. Again, my job is to keep noticing how and why you make that kind of interpretation and try to communicate better. But just know this; I take as much blame as necessary for not making it clear to you why 'setting aside' wasn't how you took it. But you may or may not see that there were at least three other ways you could have understood it. I can't go down rabbit holes each time you tell me why I'm dense and missing the point. I'll keep bringing up Steiner's direct words, examples and how they perfectly match my request. And I'll try to rhythmically bring your statements in touch with Steiner's. I'm just the middle man, so to speak.

If we can set that aside for the moment, great. If not, we'll go from wherever you are.

You said, "setting aside whether or not I agree with what you wrote above". I do not want to set aside whether you agree or not or your view on these issues (not Steiner, not Schopenhauer, not anyone else) - your view. I want you to tell us your view plainly.

I don't know who these people are messaging you or whatever, but I have no idea why that is even relevant. Just tell us your view!

[AshvinP]

This is exactly the same thing I was criticizing before with FB... you are not trying to do phenomenology, which starts with givens of our experience, i.e. Thinking activity in relation to perceptions (visual or otherwise). You want to get rid of that given of our experience from consideration and then say we are "empirically" deriving results. That should remind you of what other philosophers do, namely the materialists and dualists, who think good science can be done by getting rid of the "subject" from consideration and only considering the "object". In our experience, we know this cannot ever be done, so the approach can only lead to flawed conclusions about the essence of what we experience.

I'm genuinely offended. You project to me something I have not said nor intended ("want to get rid of"). After you first give a normative definition of phenomenology.

Why do you oppose empirical and and comparative phenomenology? Is quality and experience of thinking a normative 'should', thinking and experiencing only as defined and prescripted by somebody, anybody who wrote a book?????

We are not doing empirical phenomenology if we assume away any givens of our experience. It sounded to me like you wanted to assume away the conceptual meanings of the perceptions we encounter in the exercise and just "see what happens". But maybe I am wrong, so it would help if you explained what the point of the exercise is.

[Cleric K]

Again, I'd be curious if you consistently apply this kind of intellectual reasoning and apply it to Steiner, say, in his partridge example in PoF. He has many others but that one could receive the same objection you apply to me here. I already know you definitely won't apply it to Steiner Nobody does. When Steiner makes the exact same move I (and others, of course!) am making here, you immediately shift the goalpost and focus on some other aspect of the question. I get it.

But as you go through PoF and the other early books, just notice the five or six places where Steiner chooses very specific examples because he thinks that they express the point he is making (about the fundamental necessity of connecting a percept to a concept in everyday experience).

Blanks, you're twisting things around. I don't have problem with the terms 'perception', 'finding concept', 'attaching'. It is you who have trouble with the terms. I'm not saying that's impossible to use these words to describe the phenomenological experience of thinking. I'm saying that's impossible to experience them phenomenologically in the way you demand. It's like someone saying "My temperature is rising" and another one protesting that this is phenomenologically incorrect because there's nowhere to be found some 'temperature' that is moving 'up'. It's quite similar in our case. The words 'attaching concept' make perfect sense when we experience thinking intimately, just as 'rising temperature' makes perfect sense to someone who experiences it. It becomes impossible only when it's demanded that we should phenomenologically see some floating perceptions and concepts (or whatever) plugging into each other.

I'll return you to the pencil exercise. I use the same words 'perceiving', 'thinking', 'uniting percept with concept'. Steiner does the same. For me these words are meaningful because they are labels for living experiences, just as rising temperature is meaningful label for the corresponding inner experience.

Let me put it this way. How would you describe the phenomenological experience with the pencil? You take a pencil, think about it and notice some detail, for example a patch of peeled paint. How would you describe your inner experience? You have a pencil perception then you apply your willed thinking activity and as a result you attain to a concept. Please, just tell us what is the proper phenomenological description of this inner experience. Maybe this will finally lift the mystery on what your actual view on the question is.

[AshvinP]

"You are not trying to do phenomenology, which starts with givens of our experience, i.e. Thinking activity in relation to perceptions."

You are a smart person. If you've written an article for one of the Anthroposophical journals in which you criticize Steiner for this, I'd love to read it. Like I said, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you've memorized the five or six spots in his early epistemology when he goes out of his way to say that 'this is clear' to anybody paying attention. The 'this' he refers to is exactly where I'm starting. Of course: it's on me for not making you see this. That's sort of true!

I am responding to this, but please keep in mind I am still requesting your view on the matter apart from anything Steiner wrote. I think you are referring to a passage like this one:

When viewed more closely the matter turns out to be completely different from what is described here. When I hear a sound, I seek first of all the concept corresponding to this observation. It is only this concept that first takes me beyond the sound. Whoever does not reflect further just hears the sound and is content with that. Through my reflection, however, it is clear to me that I have to comprehend a sound as an effect. Therefore, only when I join the concept effect with the perception of the sound, am I moved to go beyond the individual observation and seek the cause. The concept “effect” calls up the concept “cause,” and I then look for the causal object, which I find in the form of the partridge. These concepts, “cause” and “effect,” however, I can never gain through mere observation, no matter how many instances it may cover. Observation calls forth thinking, and this latter first shows me the way to join the single experience to another.

So what is the critique here? Steiner is starting with the given of experience when perceiving a sound. And I am sure everyone here has had an experience where they perceived a sound yet did not pursue it much further, or where they perceived a sound and pursued it much further than they normally would. That is how our living activity of Thinking manifests in the real world of phenomenal appearances.

[SanteriSatama]

We are not doing empirical phenomenology if we assume away any givens of our experience. It sounded to me like you wanted to assume away the conceptual meanings of the perceptions we encounter in the exercise and just "see what happens". But maybe I am wrong, so it would help if you explained what the point of the exercise is.

I thought I was very clear that empirism of conceptualization based only on visual sense is a very narrow given, as we by some count have given of 5 expropective senses and and uncountably indefinite amount of introspective senses.

All I suggested was a more empirically inclusive and holistic experiment of thinking a concept. The experiment is very simple. With eyes closed, think the concept of pencil as multisensually etc. as you can, but also not trying to force the experiment in any specific direction, just letting thinking and experiencing happen as happens while focusing on the concept of pencil.

I remain very curious of what results others would get and could report from such experiment. Please?

[AshvinP]

We are not doing empirical phenomenology if we assume away any givens of our experience. It sounded to me like you wanted to assume away the conceptual meanings of the perceptions we encounter in the exercise and just "see what happens". But maybe I am wrong, so it would help if you explained what the point of the exercise is.

I thought I was very clear that empirism of conceptualization based only on visual sense is a very narrow given, as we by some count have given of 5 expropective senses and and uncountably indefinite amount of introspective senses.

All I suggested was a more empirically inclusive and holistic experiment of thinking a concept. The experiment is very simple. With eyes closed, think the concept of pencil as multisensually etc. as you can, but also not trying to force the experiment in any specific direction, just letting thinking and experiencing happen as happens while focusing on the concept of pencil.

I remain very curious of what results others would get and could report from such experiment. Please?

Should I be holding an inner visual image of pencil with eyes closed, and for how long?

[SanteriSatama]

Should I be holding an inner visual image of pencil with eyes closed, and for how long?

As you like, as it goes. Just try to include also other senses, taste, touch, smell, sound, etc., and let associations run free while attending thinking and attention.