Philosophy Unbound: Schopenhauer vs. Steiner (Round One)

[findingblanks]

" I wonder what you think about Bergson's approach posted in a separate thread."

If I have time this weekend, I'll try to read it. Sure, I've said that to dozens of people about dozens of things this weekend, but I really mean it!

In general, I tend to agree with many of Steiner's core criticisms of Bergson. That said, I don't think Steiner perfectly characterized Bergson's work and I certainly learn from Bergon every time I read his work. Of course, many of my Anthroposophical acquaintances assure me that Steiner knew exactly what was wrong with Bergson. As I said, I see real value in his criticism, just not don't think it was absolute or 100% accurate.

[AshvinP]

" I wonder what you think about Bergson's approach posted in a separate thread."

If I have time this weekend, I'll try to read it. Sure, I've said that to dozens of people about dozens of things this weekend, but I really mean it!

In general, I tend to agree with many of Steiner's core criticisms of Bergson. That said, I don't think Steiner perfectly characterized Bergson's work and I certainly learn from Bergon every time I read his work. Of course, many of my Anthroposophical acquaintances assure me that Steiner knew exactly what was wrong with Bergson. As I said, I see real value in his criticism, just not don't think it was absolute or 100% accurate.

Alright well then I look forward to your assessment. Keep in mind I am not at all trying to evaluate Steiner's criticisms of Bergson (or any other philosopher) at this point. That will lead into way too many detours that are unnecessary. I want to deal directly with the living essence of intuition as Steiner and Bergson both saw it and how it relates to our phenomenology of Thinking. In the section I quoted from Bergson, he makes clear that intuition is a form of knowing, and not "opposed to intelligence" as many other philosophers presumed, including Schopenhauer. So Steiner and Bergson definitely have that in common and I would like to see where we can go from that shared understanding. I imagine that also suits you since bringing harmony to disparate philosophers is a great result for you, as it is for me (despite my disagreement about Steiner-Schopenhauer being compatible), and is actually what I aim to do in most of my essays.

[findingblanks]

Yeah, indeed. When I tell Anthroposophists that I think part of Steiner's mistake in his characterization of Bergson is that he misses what they share by taking Bergson's terms in his way, they...teach me to mediate and think more clearly

Of course, once somebody thinks Steiner has 'destroyed' another thinker by pointing to their errors, you don't get very far. But I'm glad you might see Steiner not fully correct in this context. Someday it could be interesting to explore Bergson's ideas more deeply.

In this context, I'm hoping some people who have deeper knowledge of Schopenhauer can tell us if Steiner's interpretation of that paragraph is perfect or leaves room for other understandings. Might have to wait for future readers.

[AshvinP]

Yeah, indeed. When I tell Anthroposophists that I think part of Steiner's mistake in his characterization of Bergson is that he misses what they share by taking Bergson's terms in his way, they...teach me to mediate and think more clearly

Of course, once somebody thinks Steiner has 'destroyed' another thinker by pointing to their errors, you don't get very far. But I'm glad you might see Steiner not fully correct in this context. Someday it could be interesting to explore Bergson's ideas more deeply.

In this context, I'm hoping some people who have deeper knowledge of Schopenhauer can tell us if Steiner's interpretation of that paragraph is perfect or leaves room for other understandings. Might have to wait for future readers.

I don't think Steiner was wrong about Bergson - I am pasting my comment on that here as well for anyone interested. But the key question remains whether you see the similarity in Bergson's approach to phenomenology as described in The Creative Mind and Steiner's approach in PoF. It seems you are pretty familiar with both of them. I tried to sum up most of Cleric's recent responses and this Steiner-Bergson connection in this comment as well - viewtopic.php?p=8277#p8277


viewtopic.php?f=6&p=8315#p8315
Steiner's criticism of Bergson is the same criticism he makes for nearly every similar philosopher or scientist, such as Hegel or Jung - they remain at the level of abstract intellect and hesitate to go any further because they are convinced it's simply not possible. They may have excellent conceptual frameworks which largely aligned with Steiner's own philosophy, but that's all they are - conceptual frameworks - and therefore they remain at very low resolution on these matters. The passage I quoted from Bergson was from a book written and published two decades after Steiner passed. So I think it's clear Bergson managed to get to higher resolution than any writings Steiner would have been familiar with, and who knows maybe he came across Steiner's own writings. I am not familiar with any of Bergson's earlier writings, but I imagine they were not as comprehensive and insightful as The Creative Mind. Here is an excerpt from Steiner which makes the fundamental criticism clear. Without that context, people may be left with the impression Steiner disagreed with everything Bergson said about human cognition, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Again the purely intellectual conceptual Philosophy can attain to the recognition of the immortality of the soul only by an indirect way. As it recognizes in thought something that can be compared with a dead body, so in the will it can establish something comparable with a seed. Something that has life in itself, which points beyond the dissolution of the body, because its nature shows itself, even during life on earth, independent of it. So, since we do not stand still at thought, but use all soul-life as experience of self, we can reach an indirect realization of the everlasting nucleus of the human being. Further we must not limit our contemplation to thought, but subject the interchange of thought with the other forces of the soul to philosophical methods of proof. But still with all this we come only to experience the everlasting human nucleus as it is in the earth-life, and not to a vision of the condition of the human spirit and the human soul before and after it. This is the case, for instance, with Bergson's Philosophy, which rests on a comprehensive self-experience of what is evident in the earth-life, but which refuses to step into the region of real super-sensible knowledge.

[findingblanks]

Another way in from the side of the house:

Find somebody who would say that a car can be a percept.

Then ask them what it is a percept of.

Make sure this is a person who really does believe that a car is an ontological reality and they are perceiving it.

At first they will think you're crazy to suggest otherwise. But just have them tell you what it means that they are experiencing a percept of a car.

It will get.....complex. You will probably be told you need to meditate harder to understand how the car as a real thing in the universe.

But start simple. See if you can find an Anthroposophist who is happy to say that 'a percept of a car' is not silly.

Don't frame it like I just did or they still start to realize they can't really say there is such a thing and they'll begin the twisting dance too early.

Just ask, "Is it fair to say that we are having a percept of that tree over there?" And then point to the car.

[AshvinP]

Just ask, "Is it fair to say that we are having a percept of that tree over there?" And then point to the car.

And then ask, "is any of this exercise coherent if you do not first think about the meanings of all these word-percepts I am referencing?". If they answer "no", then Steiner's critique of Schopenhauer was right

[findingblanks]

I wonder if any serious reader's of PoF believe that a cat sees percepts.

[findingblanks]

But some of us might believe that cat's don't experience objects and qualia at all.

[findingblanks]

But assuming the cat isn't intuiting the nature of all that surrounds it as it skillfully plays with another cat, I guess we can agree that it is thinking that divides the mere appearances from the ideas.

[SanteriSatama]

But some of us might believe that cat's don't experience objects and qualia at all.

Cat does not jump on the table. Cat stays still and shifts the world.