Intuition, thinking and Antroposophy
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:31 pm
Hello everyone.
I have written down some of the thoughts I had about the epistemological approach of anthroposophy. I am in the process of developing an understanding of this myself and it helps me when I write about this topic.
There has been a lot of discussion lately about different spiritual paths. I couldn't contribute much on the subject as my knowledge is very limited and I really couldn't have contributed anything of value or depth. I think it's important to talk about the basics, because I could see for myself how quickly it takes an abstract theoretical direction when you deal with anthroposophy. I hope to trigger a small discussion about Steiner's epistemological part.
I would be grateful for criticism.
I didn't have any special structure when writing this text. I hope it is understandable.
Our thinking, from our everyday consciousness, is thinking about things that appear separate from us. We have our thoughts and perception on the other side.
Our thoughts about the object are placeholders for the perception outside of our being. They are finished objects when they hit us in our perception, over which we have no influence in the process of their creation. We are in a world full of apparently finished objects, where we cannot understand the metamorphosis and creation.
As Rudolf Steiner said: "But we can only grasp what we know how it came about." That is why science tries to explain the origin and metamorphosis of things. We try, through our thinking, in the abstract Thoughts to create a model that explains to us the tranformation and emergence of world content. The only thing that we can say with certainty that it doesn't seem finished to us and we are involved in the production is our thinking, our thoughts are finished products, but we know, e.g. when we think to answer a tricky question, that it was we who brought it into this finished form (we are not aware of the finer details, but we feel that we were active and formed the fixed thoughts in the end in order to be able to give an answer)
This is exactly where the important epistemological approach of goethe and steiner lies, instead of thinking about things in an abstract way, which can never completely quench our thirst for knowledge, we immerse ourselves in the world process, in which we renew the world content in our activity. The content (in us) then no longer only has a subjective character, but because we absorb the world content in us and allow it to develop, it has an objective character.
Thus, nature no longer seems alienated to us, but we penetrate it completely through our thinking.
Everything in nature is given to us, we only have to actively produce our ideas and concepts in order to perceive them and find them in the world.
For example, if we do the seed meditation, we let it become a plant, in our own activity. So we may perceive the true forces that are at work in the plant. Thus we can perceive the ideal part of the plant, called the idea or the primeval plant. This is an intuitive knowledge which can perceive a purely spiritual content.
It is important to understand the role of thinking in our cognition, for example without thinking we could never come to cognition. Because it is our thinking that gives form to what is given, so that we can study the world phenomenon systematically at all. One could say that the real world is perception permeated by thought.
When we look at the world content, the mind is already active, picking out details of our perception and then relating them to each other (e.g. in the case of a forest, the tree in relation to the whole forest).
Pure perception would be a disturbing image for us, full of shapes and colors with which we can do nothing.
It is thought that gives meaning to our perception.
In the philosophy of freedom, Steiner says that concepts and intuition belong together. It must be noted that the thought is only the outer form, which points us to an independent spiritual content, which we can call intuition and can understand through intuition.
The perception of spiritual content can be called intuitive thinking and is a method of cognition.
Thinking is often also referred to as an organ of perception, which is difficult to understand at first because our everyday thinking seems like a subjective (in us) description of the outer (objective) world. However, as we broaden our understanding of thinking, some things become clear. A special feature is that we have to be active ourselves in intuitive thinking and have to produce the content, but the content is not subjective, but carries its content itself.
Here you can also find the thread why Steiner often emphasizes that we are already in the spiritual world when we study humanities texts, for example. However, this does not mean that when we live spiritual scientific thoughts, like everyday thoughts, in the spiritual world, but only when we think intuitively.
A possible objection can be that if we ourselves produce all content, this is not objective but subjective.
As mentioned before, we must be clear that if we want to come to knowledge, instead of passively contemplating the given, we must make the given appear actively in our activity. However, the content must be objective, the content of which we do not add, but the content of which is self-determined. In our thinking we do not create the content of our thoughts ourselves.
This approach to generating knowledge is therefore a more lively and essence-oriented one than creating mental models. It is our activity that adds the ideal part to the given passive part of the world, however, as mentioned, the ideal part is not subjective, but has its own content, which can be perceived through intuitive thinking. Through such an oriented approach, epestemiology can become ontology, because this approach brings the realization that the essence of nature consists of ideals.
The approach of today's science should not be badmouthed, it also has its value. Nevertheless, it is one-sided and not well suited to answering deeper questions.
Today's scientist is also active spiritually, on the world's appearances. He thinks about phenomena, schematizes them and creates models. All of this can only happen because the human being makes it possible. It is his thought activity that allows him to do so, but this is forgotten to be taken into account and goes unrecognized. However, this is also due to the nature of thinking, that while thinking, the thinker perceives the object of thought, forgetting the activity.
Finally, I would like to add easily 2 observable phenomena related to the discussed topic that are interesting.
What I have observed about myself is that when I have understood something after a long period of thinking, I have a feeling of "enlightenment" (not meant in the sense of a mystical realization experience). It's like that suddenly everything is clear, it was just understood, but I can still experience this not explain with words, but only describe. From this intuitive understanding, if you can call it that, I can then try to articulate a sentence. So I press the intuition, the mental content, which can quickly disappear, into a certain form, which I can fix and hold on to longer.
(When we read a book on a subject that is new to us, we see the writing, understand the words, but the content remains obscure to us. If we remain passive, we will never understand the meaning contained in the book . What we have to do in order to understand it is to become active and to think through the content ourselves and even then to create the meaning of the text. )
PS I am writing part 2, which should deal more with the esoteric aspects. I don't know when I'll finish it and post it.
Best regards
I have written down some of the thoughts I had about the epistemological approach of anthroposophy. I am in the process of developing an understanding of this myself and it helps me when I write about this topic.
There has been a lot of discussion lately about different spiritual paths. I couldn't contribute much on the subject as my knowledge is very limited and I really couldn't have contributed anything of value or depth. I think it's important to talk about the basics, because I could see for myself how quickly it takes an abstract theoretical direction when you deal with anthroposophy. I hope to trigger a small discussion about Steiner's epistemological part.
I would be grateful for criticism.
I didn't have any special structure when writing this text. I hope it is understandable.
Our thinking, from our everyday consciousness, is thinking about things that appear separate from us. We have our thoughts and perception on the other side.
Our thoughts about the object are placeholders for the perception outside of our being. They are finished objects when they hit us in our perception, over which we have no influence in the process of their creation. We are in a world full of apparently finished objects, where we cannot understand the metamorphosis and creation.
As Rudolf Steiner said: "But we can only grasp what we know how it came about." That is why science tries to explain the origin and metamorphosis of things. We try, through our thinking, in the abstract Thoughts to create a model that explains to us the tranformation and emergence of world content. The only thing that we can say with certainty that it doesn't seem finished to us and we are involved in the production is our thinking, our thoughts are finished products, but we know, e.g. when we think to answer a tricky question, that it was we who brought it into this finished form (we are not aware of the finer details, but we feel that we were active and formed the fixed thoughts in the end in order to be able to give an answer)
This is exactly where the important epistemological approach of goethe and steiner lies, instead of thinking about things in an abstract way, which can never completely quench our thirst for knowledge, we immerse ourselves in the world process, in which we renew the world content in our activity. The content (in us) then no longer only has a subjective character, but because we absorb the world content in us and allow it to develop, it has an objective character.
Thus, nature no longer seems alienated to us, but we penetrate it completely through our thinking.
Everything in nature is given to us, we only have to actively produce our ideas and concepts in order to perceive them and find them in the world.
For example, if we do the seed meditation, we let it become a plant, in our own activity. So we may perceive the true forces that are at work in the plant. Thus we can perceive the ideal part of the plant, called the idea or the primeval plant. This is an intuitive knowledge which can perceive a purely spiritual content.
It is important to understand the role of thinking in our cognition, for example without thinking we could never come to cognition. Because it is our thinking that gives form to what is given, so that we can study the world phenomenon systematically at all. One could say that the real world is perception permeated by thought.
When we look at the world content, the mind is already active, picking out details of our perception and then relating them to each other (e.g. in the case of a forest, the tree in relation to the whole forest).
Pure perception would be a disturbing image for us, full of shapes and colors with which we can do nothing.
It is thought that gives meaning to our perception.
In the philosophy of freedom, Steiner says that concepts and intuition belong together. It must be noted that the thought is only the outer form, which points us to an independent spiritual content, which we can call intuition and can understand through intuition.
The perception of spiritual content can be called intuitive thinking and is a method of cognition.
Thinking is often also referred to as an organ of perception, which is difficult to understand at first because our everyday thinking seems like a subjective (in us) description of the outer (objective) world. However, as we broaden our understanding of thinking, some things become clear. A special feature is that we have to be active ourselves in intuitive thinking and have to produce the content, but the content is not subjective, but carries its content itself.
Here you can also find the thread why Steiner often emphasizes that we are already in the spiritual world when we study humanities texts, for example. However, this does not mean that when we live spiritual scientific thoughts, like everyday thoughts, in the spiritual world, but only when we think intuitively.
A possible objection can be that if we ourselves produce all content, this is not objective but subjective.
As mentioned before, we must be clear that if we want to come to knowledge, instead of passively contemplating the given, we must make the given appear actively in our activity. However, the content must be objective, the content of which we do not add, but the content of which is self-determined. In our thinking we do not create the content of our thoughts ourselves.
This approach to generating knowledge is therefore a more lively and essence-oriented one than creating mental models. It is our activity that adds the ideal part to the given passive part of the world, however, as mentioned, the ideal part is not subjective, but has its own content, which can be perceived through intuitive thinking. Through such an oriented approach, epestemiology can become ontology, because this approach brings the realization that the essence of nature consists of ideals.
The approach of today's science should not be badmouthed, it also has its value. Nevertheless, it is one-sided and not well suited to answering deeper questions.
Today's scientist is also active spiritually, on the world's appearances. He thinks about phenomena, schematizes them and creates models. All of this can only happen because the human being makes it possible. It is his thought activity that allows him to do so, but this is forgotten to be taken into account and goes unrecognized. However, this is also due to the nature of thinking, that while thinking, the thinker perceives the object of thought, forgetting the activity.
Finally, I would like to add easily 2 observable phenomena related to the discussed topic that are interesting.
What I have observed about myself is that when I have understood something after a long period of thinking, I have a feeling of "enlightenment" (not meant in the sense of a mystical realization experience). It's like that suddenly everything is clear, it was just understood, but I can still experience this not explain with words, but only describe. From this intuitive understanding, if you can call it that, I can then try to articulate a sentence. So I press the intuition, the mental content, which can quickly disappear, into a certain form, which I can fix and hold on to longer.
(When we read a book on a subject that is new to us, we see the writing, understand the words, but the content remains obscure to us. If we remain passive, we will never understand the meaning contained in the book . What we have to do in order to understand it is to become active and to think through the content ourselves and even then to create the meaning of the text. )
PS I am writing part 2, which should deal more with the esoteric aspects. I don't know when I'll finish it and post it.
Best regards