JustinG wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:16 pmThe point was that no philosophy can be abstracted from the social context in which it arises. Compare the breadth, scope and rigour of the social analyses of Hegel with Steiner's simplistic notion of the threefold social organism with its legal , economic and cultural domains. There is simply no comparison. Steiner's social analysis merely reflects the middle class attitudes of his day, and if Steiner's social analyses cannot be relied on then the same is likely to be the case for other areas he explored.Cleric K wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 11:38 am I think this attempt to present spirituality as some elitist club that exploits the ignorant souls has worn out. And I'm not saying that this hasn't been the case all over the world, in the past and today, in Churches and Ashrams. But to present this as an excuse for not pursuing deeper understanding of reality is really just that - an excuse.
I'm not denying the brilliance of PoF. But it seems that after his philosophical work was ignored by the philosophical mainstream Steiner increasingly turned inward, generating inner reflections of his outer cultural world. This is not to say these insights have no value, but Hegel's philosophy is a vastly superior form of idealism IMO.
Anyway, to avoid generating further circles to nowhere, I will also bow out of this thread. Bye for now.
I suppose it is for the best this thread to naturally wind its way down now. So, for my part, I will bow out by commenting that the bold above is a) illogical and b) prideful. A, you have not even made an argument for why "Steiner's social analyses cannot be relied on", just put forth one or two assertions as pure speculative dogma. It also does not follow that, IF his social analyses were off the mark, "the same is likely to be the case for other areas he explored". These are matters of such basic logical reasoning that I don't feel the need to expand more.
B, I know this assertion is prideful because you had no idea Steiner outlined sociopolitical framework before I informed you of it a few days ago. So then you read the preface I quoted for you (which I also edited down, so it is only about 50% of the preface) and base your conclusions off of that, pretending you are now an expert on the spiritual experience and principles underlying Steiner's threefold social organism (which are the same exact spiritual experience and principles underlying the rest of his work). I may write something about this soon, because, contrary to your assertion, his insights are extremely relevant to the current state of Western financial consumer economy and cultural/sociopolitical divides.
It is clear that some people have started watching videos about Steiner and reading some of his writings for the sole purpose of finding a hook to hang their "critique" of his work on. There is nothing wrong with critiquing Steiner, but it is very naive to assume you will generate an objective and logically sound critique when you go in with that purpose from the outset, and stop reading him as soon as you feel like you know enough to express your opinion, which is basically what you said you did on the Kant v. Goethe thread. It's hard enough for us to objectively consider these matters even when we are trying to remain dispassionate, let alone when we go in consciously with assumptions and goals based on our sympathies and antipathies.