Idealism, Materialism and Zen

[Soul_of_Shu]

I'm surprised you are still debating Steiner. I thought you had abandoned that. My impression of Steiner has been that he an unoriginal thinker who just mashed together a bunch of esoteric beliefs and Eastern philosophy (misunderstood in places) . Any claims of clairvoyant knowledge hardly anyone would take seriously. But I guess I can understand the appeal to some people. If I had to pick between BK and Steiner, it would be BK all the way.

It should be a wake up call that the most unabashedly physicalist thinker on this forum, who cannot understand this silly "idealism" stuff, also feels spiritual claims cannot be taken seriously under any circumstances. It's for exactly the same reason - everything that is physical, everything in the world of quantitative shadows, is taken as "objective" and "public" knowledge, while qualitative ideas - especially imaginations, inspirations, intuitions - weaved through our logical reasoning, is "private" and "subjective" wishy-washy speculations and fantasies. I think we can all agree that BK perceives this total inversion that physicalism makes very clearly. Our criticism is that he simply doesn't take it seriously enough - he doesn't continue logically reasoning to perceive how this same inverted logic is implicit in analytic idealism as well. But, at the very least, we can avoid lapsing completely back into physicalism and dualism, like our friend Jim here

Perhaps Jim will find some epistemological rationale for considering idealism in the talk between Vervaeke and Bach I just posted ... then again, maybe I'll start preferring instant coffee over fresh ground

[Eugene I.]

Eugene,

I'm surprised you are still debating Steiner. I thought you had abandoned that. My impression of Steiner has been that he an unoriginal thinker who just mashed together a bunch of esoteric beliefs and Eastern philosophy (misunderstood in places) . Any claims of clairvoyant knowledge hardly anyone would take seriously. But I guess I can understand the appeal to some people. If I had to pick between BK and Steiner, it would be BK all the way.

Well, Steiner's PoF was a good work of philosophy and some contemporary philosophers have been appreciating that (here is one example). But better ask Justin's professional opinion on that.

[Lou Gold]

Everything is a symbol of conscious being.

[JustinG]

Eugene,

I'm surprised you are still debating Steiner. I thought you had abandoned that. My impression of Steiner has been that he an unoriginal thinker who just mashed together a bunch of esoteric beliefs and Eastern philosophy (misunderstood in places) . Any claims of clairvoyant knowledge hardly anyone would take seriously. But I guess I can understand the appeal to some people. If I had to pick between BK and Steiner, it would be BK all the way.

Well, Steiner's PoF was a good work of philosophy and some contemporary philosophers have been appreciating that (here is one example). But better ask Justin's professional opinion on that.

I'm not a professional philosopher and am not familiar with Steiner's later work, but I do think he was a brilliant philosopher and that The Philosophy of Freedom is definitely worth reading and engaging with.

From a skeptical point of view, I think its is most productive to engage with the strongest representatives of views which you oppose or are skeptical of. Steiner was an academically trained philosopher who claimed to have clairvoyant abilities and to have developed a philosophy which grounds the possibility of such abilities. That is pretty rare. Hence, I think there are good reasons for skeptics and physicalists to engage with his work.

[Jim Cross]

Eugene,

I'm surprised you are still debating Steiner. I thought you had abandoned that. My impression of Steiner has been that he an unoriginal thinker who just mashed together a bunch of esoteric beliefs and Eastern philosophy (misunderstood in places) . Any claims of clairvoyant knowledge hardly anyone would take seriously. But I guess I can understand the appeal to some people. If I had to pick between BK and Steiner, it would be BK all the way.

Well, Steiner's PoF was a good work of philosophy and some contemporary philosophers have been appreciating that (here is one example). But better ask Justin's professional opinion on that.

I'm not a professional philosopher and am not familiar with Steiner's later work, but I do think he was a brilliant philosopher and that The Philosophy of Freedom is definitely worth reading and engaging with.

From a skeptical point of view, I think its is most productive to engage with the strongest representatives of views which you oppose or are skeptical of. Steiner was an academically trained philosopher who claimed to have clairvoyant abilities and to have developed a philosophy which grounds the possibility of such abilities. That is pretty rare. Hence, I think there are good reasons for skeptics and physicalists to engage with his work.

Clairvoyance is too easy. Anybody can claim clairvoyance so everything they say is beyond argument. It's even easier if the realized "truths" can't be tested objectively and can only be understood by those who have already bought into the entire philosophy. If you are not understanding, it's because you haven't developed the spiritual organs sufficiently or you're blocked by karmic impurities from previous lives. It's never because the entire framework and belief system is invalid.

It's like the hilarious thread on this forum about why reincarnated people don't usually have memories of previous lives. It doesn't occur to anybody that maybe reincarnation doesn't actually exist and that's why there are no memories? The parsimonious explanation.

As I said, I can see the appeal for some people. People want to think themselves special so belonging to a cult for the spiritually evolved - the special visionaries of our age - will appeal to some people.

Steiner may have some good insights here and there but there is too much other stuff for me to give it much serious consideration.

[AshvinP]

Well, Steiner's PoF was a good work of philosophy and some contemporary philosophers have been appreciating that (here is one example). But better ask Justin's professional opinion on that.

I'm not a professional philosopher and am not familiar with Steiner's later work, but I do think he was a brilliant philosopher and that The Philosophy of Freedom is definitely worth reading and engaging with.

From a skeptical point of view, I think its is most productive to engage with the strongest representatives of views which you oppose or are skeptical of. Steiner was an academically trained philosopher who claimed to have clairvoyant abilities and to have developed a philosophy which grounds the possibility of such abilities. That is pretty rare. Hence, I think there are good reasons for skeptics and physicalists to engage with his work.

Clairvoyance is too easy. Anybody can claim clairvoyance so everything they say is beyond argument. It's even easier if the realized "truths" can't be tested objectively and can only be understood by those who have already bought into the entire philosophy. If you are not understanding, it's because you haven't developed the spiritual organs sufficiently or you're blocked by karmic impurities from previous lives. It's never because the entire framework and belief system is invalid.

It's like the hilarious thread on this forum about why reincarnated people don't usually have memories of previous lives. It doesn't occur to anybody that maybe reincarnation doesn't actually exist and that's why there are no memories? The parsimonious explanation.

As I said, I can see the appeal for some people. People want to think themselves special so belonging to a cult for the spiritually evolved - the special visionaries of our age - will appeal to some people.

Steiner may have some good insights here and there but there is too much other stuff for me to give it much serious consideration.

I don't have anything close to clairvoyance, yet I can test all of the broad spiritual claims, like reincarnation, against my own Reason and constellations of experiential facts to see if they are harmonious. I can see exactly how the nominalism/rationalism/dualism/materialism responsible for the flattened and lifeless view of the Cosmos also makes sense of why soul and spirit processes are completely ignored in modern philosophy and science. Why all of ancient mythology, spiritual tradition, and philosophy which was spiritual, must be written off as "superstitious" by that flattened view, which is the least reasonable or parsimonious explanation. I can see why it even makes sense of my daily experience, from waking to sleeping-dreaming to waking, or contemplating aesthetics, which secular science has no explanation for. It's not as if Steiner was the only person who suggest these things, he was simply the person to most comprehensively harmonize the facts together. Every Western idealist thinker since Plato had something to contribute which secular science is at a complete loss to understand.

What is the explanation for Jung's 'collective unconscious'? What about Bergson's philosophy of intuition? How does secular science explain the evolution of consciousness thoroughly documented by Hegel, Schelling, Emerson, Coleridge, Gebser, Barfield, Steiner, Jung, Teilhard de Chardin, Aurobindo, and quite a few others? There are a million other aspects of human experience which can't be explained by secular science, because they don't even know those aspects exist. Or they think calling them "random" is an explanation. All of these aspects of the depth structure underlying our flattened perceptions of the world must be completely ignored for secular science to be "parsimonious". It must remove all meaningful data points from consideration before it can say, "we almost fully understand the Cosmos and now we just need to tweak around the edges!" Everyone who is thinking logically can sense how far off from reality that is.

[Jim Cross]

I can test all of the broad spiritual claims, like reincarnation, against my own Reason and constellations of experiential facts to see if they are harmonious.

It's even easier if the realized "truths" can't be tested objectively and can only be understood by those who have already bought into the entire philosophy.

[AshvinP]

I can test all of the broad spiritual claims, like reincarnation, against my own Reason and constellations of experiential facts to see if they are harmonious.

It's even easier if the realized "truths" can't be tested objectively and can only be understood by those who have already bought into the entire philosophy.

These things can be understood by anyone who is thinking logically and not simply flowing along with unconscious desires and feelings. I did not 'buy into' the entire philosophy before I first understood it. I know that is the reverse of the physicalist mindset, but weshoudn't accept anything until it first makes sense according to our own sound and unprejudiced reason.

Anyway, if your next response dwindles down even further to a quote of five or fewer words, I will not be responding and you can have the (literally) last word

[Hedge90]

Well, Steiner's PoF was a good work of philosophy and some contemporary philosophers have been appreciating that (here is one example). But better ask Justin's professional opinion on that.

I'm not a professional philosopher and am not familiar with Steiner's later work, but I do think he was a brilliant philosopher and that The Philosophy of Freedom is definitely worth reading and engaging with.

From a skeptical point of view, I think its is most productive to engage with the strongest representatives of views which you oppose or are skeptical of. Steiner was an academically trained philosopher who claimed to have clairvoyant abilities and to have developed a philosophy which grounds the possibility of such abilities. That is pretty rare. Hence, I think there are good reasons for skeptics and physicalists to engage with his work.

Clairvoyance is too easy. Anybody can claim clairvoyance so everything they say is beyond argument. It's even easier if the realized "truths" can't be tested objectively and can only be understood by those who have already bought into the entire philosophy. If you are not understanding, it's because you haven't developed the spiritual organs sufficiently or you're blocked by karmic impurities from previous lives. It's never because the entire framework and belief system is invalid.

It's like the hilarious thread on this forum about why reincarnated people don't usually have memories of previous lives. It doesn't occur to anybody that maybe reincarnation doesn't actually exist and that's why there are no memories? The parsimonious explanation.

As I said, I can see the appeal for some people. People want to think themselves special so belonging to a cult for the spiritually evolved - the special visionaries of our age - will appeal to some people.

Steiner may have some good insights here and there but there is too much other stuff for me to give it much serious consideration.

Jim, the reincarnation topic was started by me, and my default stance is "there is no reincarnation". It's dishonest to paint it as if this possibility "didn't occur to anybody". I, and apparently, others too, are simply willing to entertain in other possibilities, if someone can present convincing rationale for them. Which, to be honest, seems to not be the case with you, based on your activity on this forum. You have your convictions and are not open to entertaining other points of view if that would mean you'd have to detach from certain axioms you hold as absolute truth.

[Jim Cross]

I'm not a professional philosopher and am not familiar with Steiner's later work, but I do think he was a brilliant philosopher and that The Philosophy of Freedom is definitely worth reading and engaging with.

From a skeptical point of view, I think its is most productive to engage with the strongest representatives of views which you oppose or are skeptical of. Steiner was an academically trained philosopher who claimed to have clairvoyant abilities and to have developed a philosophy which grounds the possibility of such abilities. That is pretty rare. Hence, I think there are good reasons for skeptics and physicalists to engage with his work.

Clairvoyance is too easy. Anybody can claim clairvoyance so everything they say is beyond argument. It's even easier if the realized "truths" can't be tested objectively and can only be understood by those who have already bought into the entire philosophy. If you are not understanding, it's because you haven't developed the spiritual organs sufficiently or you're blocked by karmic impurities from previous lives. It's never because the entire framework and belief system is invalid.

It's like the hilarious thread on this forum about why reincarnated people don't usually have memories of previous lives. It doesn't occur to anybody that maybe reincarnation doesn't actually exist and that's why there are no memories? The parsimonious explanation.

As I said, I can see the appeal for some people. People want to think themselves special so belonging to a cult for the spiritually evolved - the special visionaries of our age - will appeal to some people.

Steiner may have some good insights here and there but there is too much other stuff for me to give it much serious consideration.

Jim, the reincarnation topic was started by me, and my default stance is "there is no reincarnation". It's dishonest to paint it as if this possibility "didn't occur to anybody". I, and apparently, others too, are simply willing to entertain in other possibilities, if someone can present convincing rationale for them. Which, to be honest, seems to not be the case with you, based on your activity on this forum. You have your convictions and are not open to entertaining other points of view if that would mean you'd have to detach from certain axioms you hold as absolute truth.

I'm quite willing to entertain other possibilities too. I just need some evidence beyond that it is a "feel good" idea. What feels good to one might not feel good to another. Why would I want to experience a thousand lifetimes to become enlightened?

To tie it back to the Steiner comments:

Reincarnation in particular has a strong association with the Indian caste system as an explanation for worldly disparities in wealth and fortune. It is a segregation and classification of people that also lies at the foundation of Steiner's thought, which is why some find his views racist. I'm not a fan of the "ladder" view of life that classifies everyone by spiritual evolution (based on whose conception?) and thinks our job is to move up the ladder through toil and suffering which apparently we must be experiencing since we are below the top rung.

I want immediate enlightenment, not the kind that requires a thousand lifetimes or that requires learning Steiner or anybody else.