![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 March 2023. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the article as it stands at the moment we read,
'For monism in Steiner's sense there are only concepts and percepts, which, united, form the object; for the dualist there is the subject, the object, the percept, and the concept.[29] We must not conceive of the process of perception as though it is naïvely real, as we do when we take perception to be a causal effect of the things as they are in themselves on us. Metaphysical realism is the view that there is an object in the world that is imperceptible as it is in itself, but is also to be conceived naïve realistically. It 'is a contradictory mixture of naïve realism and idealism. Its hypothetical [elements] are imperceptible entities endowed with the qualities of percepts’.[30] For the monist, the process of perception is an ideal relation. The metaphysical realist, however, is left with the unanswerable question how the metaphysically real objects are converted into subjective percepts. Here Steiner can be read as giving his account of the structure and basis of what is today called the mind-body problem.
This is quite a "new research" sort of view. Should it be deleted? The reasons I ask are: (1) Steiner does not seem interested in the mind-body problem (soul-body in German; (2) Does he really think that there are no subjects, only concepts and percepts? (3) We can form a concept and a percept of our own subject, unite them, and presto! there is subject. We can do the same for some object we are looking at. Presto again: we have the mind-body problem. Thewikibeagles ( talk) 00:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Is it really desirable to list every philosopher cited in the PoF? Can we trim the list to just those who are important sources and leave off those who are merely briefly mentioned? HGilbert ( talk) 16:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
If Brentano's pupils included Edmund Husserl and Alexius Meinong, is that sufficient for either of them to be linked as a "see also", without any other mention in the article, in PoF or in Steiner's Riddles of Philosophy? Qexigator ( talk) 11:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that it deserves a place in the article, the See Also link suffices. HGilbert ( talk) 02:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The best I could find by Googlesearch (situational ethics rudolf steiner), given that Wikipedia is essentially an open access website, was American Philosophy and Rudolf Steiner: Emerson, Thoreau, Peirce, James ... edited by Robert A. McDermott [2] If there is none better, this could be added as an External link instead of the "See also" going to Fletcher. Also Rudolf Steiner: Herald of a New Epoch By Stewart Copinger Easton [3] -- Qexigator ( talk) 08:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor who has drawn attention to the total inadequacy of the article on "situational ethics" so far as this article on PoF is concerned, seems to think that simply adding a reference to chapter 9 of PoF is sufficient to avoid confusing or misleading a reader. It seems fairly clear that it is not, and if anything adds to the problem. The reader, who is being informed about the content of the book in its historical context, presumably lacks prior knowledge of all or most of the article content, and care should be taken not to assume otherwise, and not to assume such prior knowledge of "situational ethics" and its relevance as that editor seems to possess. Nor can a reader's prior knowledge of or commitment to "situational ethics" be assumed.
In the pdf linked (annotated) edition, the chapter, The Idea of Freedom, starts at (print) page 135, in Part II: Practice. Let us assume that a reader, interested in Steiner's PoF, wishes to follow up the information in the article by making the link and perusing Chapter 9. Would not a reader expect to find there "situational ethics" in the author's text and notes (as translated) or in an editor's later annotation, explaining this anachronistic expression in relation to PoF? Such a reader could find a helpful annotation about Kreyenbuhl, but nothing about "situational ethics" as such. The reader ends up not knowing why s/he had been induced to go there by the "see also" link. A careful reader could draw the conclusion that this chapter, in this book, is a refutation of what has come to be termed "situational ethics", per Fletcher or others. Is that what this "see also link" is aiming at, or is it the intention to obfuscate the purport of PoF? Is there a reliable source either way? Or is this merely the intrusion of POV? Editors here will be aware that PoF is about "freedom" in a more than usually elevated meaning, or "spiritual activity", not the sort of ethics normally connected with the term "situational". The word PoF used was "intuition". Qexigator ( talk) 21:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
It can be seen that the "situational ethics" link was made when the PoF article was building, in May 2008 [4], apparently without noticing that the linked article was not suited to the content of PoF as such, which included "Steiner then introduces the principle that we can act out of the compulsions of our natural being (reflexes, drives, desires) or out of the compulsion of ethical principles, and that neither of these leaves me free. Between them, however, is an individual insight, a situational ethic, that arises neither from abstract principles nor from my bodily impulses. A deed that arises in this way can be said to be truly free; it is also both unpredictable and wholly individual." Qexigator ( talk) 08:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Edit now done. [5] -- Qexigator ( talk) 23:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The Bondarev volume is commentary, not a translation. Please do not add it back to the list of translations. HGilbert ( talk) 17:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
In connection with public discussion about PoF, there seems to have been some controversy between the two Russian born writers, Prokofieff and Bondarev, or their followers or critics, particularly in relation to their respective works in German on Steiner's work. Given that Bondarev's commentary was first published in German in 2004, Prokofieff's in 2006, and the similarity in the words of the title which the second book has to the first, the addition of the information about the German translation may help a reader of English language Wikipedia who needs clarification, that is, a reader who knows of one but not the other or knows of neither, whether or not the other writer, Oberski, whose work was published in 2010, is a party or neutral in that controversy, commenting as an educationist (2006) (Learning to think in Steiner-Waldorf schools. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology).
[6]
[7] The controversy
long ante-dates arose long after Palmer's compilation, first published in German in the 1960's. --Qexigator 10:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC) corrected by
Qexigator (
talk)
23:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that Profofieff plagiarized Bondareev? Thewikibeagles ( talk) 20:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have a new section called "Discussions" or "Commentaries" or "Controversies". Thewikibeagles ( talk) 23:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I am inclined to think not, unless other editors are able to gather from sources enough for a separate section without committing in the article the ever to be deprecated OR or SYN (which is less severely censurable in Talk). Also, the controversy is notable as showing that Steiner's work has been of continuing interest among persons of the present generations who have concerned themselves with such things as ethics and epistemology, but perhaps less notable otherwise. The current version of the article is, in my opinion, more informative (and balanced) for an ordinary reader who has but little learning in the topic than the writings of the parties to the controversy as such would be, and at the same time the article indicates directions for further study if desired, within the encyclopedic form of presentation suited to Wikipedia and the specific topic of this article, The Philosophy of Freedom. Qexigator ( talk) 00:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
A Googlesearch (rudolf steiner paul tillich) produced such instances as:
So yes, I guess the article can usefully make a "See also" link, and leave an inquiring reader free to discover which of the two, Tillich and Steiner, has published the thinner gruel (in respect of philosophical writings) compared with the other, from that reader's pov. Qexigator ( talk) 11:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Stylistically, fluent prose is usually preferred to lists and tables, but those can sometimes support the prose. My question here is: Would it be acceptable to add the following summary to the section on "Relation to earlier and later work"?
It would appear above the section which lists quotations (two so far), and the lists for English translations and for Works on The Philosophy of Freedom. Qexigator ( talk) 17:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we should have a section in chronological order listing the different editions and translations of PoF. This would be helpful esp. concerning things like changes in chapter numbering. Thewikibeagles ( talk) 16:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The Overview used to be a brief, well, overview, while the Structure section gave details. Now the two overlap considerably. Either we should jettison the overview and combine the sections into a single journey through the PoF, or we should retain the former but merge some of the detail into the parallel description in the structure section. I'm fine with either alternative. HGilbert ( talk) 10:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I have made a couple of changes - I don't think it is as simple this: if I am aware of my motives I am free. Why does thinking then come into it, if all it takes is awareness? That is actually Spinoza's position. But awareness might have no effect at all. I can be aware of my motive for wanting to hurt someone, but unable to do anything about it, for whatever reason. Thewikibeagles ( talk) 22:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we should have an Overview, which is summary, comment and so on. And then keep "STructure", but let it really be "structure": so, for example, in Part I there are seven chapters, ditto part 2, plus a final chapter. The middle chapter is "The factors of Life. Thus e.g. Ch. 3 (Thinking) and Ch 12 (Moral Imagination) have a sort of reflected relationship in 8 . . . or whatever one says, whatever view of the structure we are going to take, and the same for all the others. But let it be about structure in a straightforward and literal way. Thewikibeagles ( talk) 22:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
"Does "cockshy" (sb.) take a hyphen? I am surprised. But the idea of merging the overview and the structure sections is surely right, unless we have something genuinely structural in mind, as I said above. Thewikibeagles ( talk) 22:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
To replace "Overview" and "Structure", would the single heading "Arrangement and outline of the book" be acceptable? Or what...? with subheads: Twofold structure (first 3 paras of present "Structure)"/ Understanding freedom/ Exercising freedom. At risk of undo for something better, this has been done by... Qexigator ( talk) 13:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
In the version current at 06:58, 25 March 2014 [12] Wilson's 1964 translation is variously cited in the reflist, sometimes with chapter or page number, but page numbers do not always correlate with those in a hardback copy of the first print of 1964. Should there be uniformity, unless otherwise stated? The first ref. is near the end of "Historical context": 'Steiner argues against both hard determinism[11] and...'
Note also, ref. 10 to Ch.6 needs clarifying: is it to "Fichte, The System of Ethics IV"? Qexigator ( talk) 11:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC) This now done. [19] --- Qexigator ( talk) 06:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
We have in the historical section Steiner arguing against "soft determinism (compatiblism)". But these are not the same. Soft determinism is a form of determinism that implies compatibilism. But compatibilism is the proposition that freewill and causation are compatible. There are compatibilist indeterminists, e.g. David Lewis, who take the view that determinism is false but compatibilism is true, and hence are not soft determinists. So which was Steiner arguing against: compatibilism or soft determinism? We should decide or change our text.
Come on Qexigator - do you think that Steiner is not arguing - an example among many - against skepticism, for example, in the theory of knowledge? That is a big "ism", but it's just a name for the view that there cannot be knowledge of the world. Both compatibilism and hard determinism are clearly argued against in Steiner's text. These are and have been standard terms in philosophy for yonks, and they mean perfectly simple things - nothing to do with librarian's classifications and student's lecture notes. What on earth is lost by using a standard word or phrase for a standard thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikibeagles ( talk • contribs) 10:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
We have at the moment a quotation from McDermott:
He suggests that outer freedom arises when we bridge the gap between our ideals and the constraints of external reality, letting our deeds be inspired by the moral imagination.[2]
This seems to me vague ("bridge the gap") and inaccurate (the point about moral imagination is the way in which our ideals at the fourth level (1. instinct; 2. feelings; 3. mental pictures or thinking images; 4. pure thinking. The fourth level here coincide with the third level of the sequence: authority; the greatest possible good of mankind purely for its own sake; the progress of civilization, or the moral evolution of mankind towards ever greater perfection; the realization of individual moral aims grasped by pure intuition.
When these two coincide, what we have is not a bridge over the gap between our ideals and the driving force, but it is inaccurate to call this the bridging of the gap between our ideals and the constraints of external reality. That makes Steiner sound like a simple libertarian.
OK, if everyone's agreed, should we make a change? Thewikibeagles ( talk) 16:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The section Understanding Freedom is far too long and wordy. Can we trim this to half of its present size? That's plenty for an article of this kind. HGilbert ( talk) 01:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It is good to see the image of the title page of the first German edition [22], but its retention may be at risk if copyright clearance from the author, per metadata, [23] is not confirmed. Qexigator ( talk) 07:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
It's OK. It was published over 70 years ago AND the author died after 1923. Thewikibeagles ( talk) 15:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The image is my own scan. (1) Can someone help me go further with the WP Commons file data page . . . I'll try one more time, but I've got into a muddle with it trying to get this image sorted. (2) And the image is not very good, partly because it is a scan of a photo scan of the original, then printed. Do you know anyone who owns the original. After that, my next job is to get on with the summary of Chapters 4 and 5. Q, how did you find out who I am? Thewikibeagles ( talk) 16:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
It's the title page. Do you know Frayn's parody of Wittgenstein? And do you mean _Erich_ Heller? He wasn't a philosopher, really, more of a literary thinking. But his pieces on Wittgenstein and Nietzsche are wonderful, I agree. Thewikibeagles ( talk) 21:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I found nothing on google, except the beagle. It is a scent hound. Well, we knew that . . . Thewikibeagles ( talk) 21:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
What on earth happened to the title page image? It has vanished! Can anyone help? Thewikibeagles ( talk) 09:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
H. Gilbert, what do you think of today's (August 10 2014)? I have gone for streamlining, trimming, and trying to bring out the forward movement of the argument. But I have only worked on Part I. Thewikibeagles ( talk) 14:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Thewikibeagles: this phrasing: "On the other hand, Steiner had a strong sense of the order of epistemological exposition, and a difficulty might be that he cannot assume the concept of a spiritual being prior to the epistemology and metaphysics of The Philosophy of Freedom." seems speculative; if it cannot be sourced, it should probably be removed. Clean Copy talk 11:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I think you may be right. The sources are at the beginning of Ch. 9 and in Truth and Science. But the "speculation", as you rightly call it, about a spiritual being and so on, does take us into the weeds, though it can (sort of) be sourced. I still think there is a worry about "spiritual" if not "Wesen", though the latter does come up at the beginning of Ch. 9 and elsewhere. The simplest thing seems to avoid any problem here and delete the comment. Thx!!
The Philosophy of Freedom relies heavily upon original research based upon Steiner's own works. Reported at WP:FTN.
While a certain amount of MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR is allowed, this article is nothing else than MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR.
After 17 years, this article is not even wrong in terms of WP:PAGs. It is a collection of musings based upon Magister dixit rather than an article of a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia.
The article does not do Steiner a favor, on the contrary, it only shows how poorly received his magnum opus was. His ethics is valuable, so the poor reception is unfair, but that's the reality, and I'm not here to WP:RGW.
By "not even wrong" I mean: it could be bad stuff, it could be good stuff, but that is in no way assessable by the Wikipedians having a long track record. It's not transparent who is the authority judging Steiner's book. It seems that by and large Steiner is passing judgment upon his own book, or that some editors are citing him to that extent.
Steiner is cited copiously and the source Wilson is simply a translation of Steiner's book. The reference to Rawls is original research. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, the broad consensus at English Wikipedia is that Rudolf Steiner did not write WP:RS, and that, as a rule of thumb, anthroposophic publications are not WP:RS. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
The sheer idea of treating Steiner and Anthroposophists as reliable sources is a bit of a howler. It's a bit like using L. Ron Hubbard and his disciples as reliable sources for an article on Scientology. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 17:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the problem: Steiner was a nobody in the academia. So Wikipedia does not even remotely consider that Steiner was an academic. He utterly failed to become one, although not because of lack of trying. Again, I have WP:RS to that extent.
Wittgenstein, Goodman, and Carnap did not belong to German Idealism. Even if there were neo-kantians in the 20th century, German Idealism was essentially over.
Also, when the powers of WP:RS are against me, I very rapidly get the point. But this is by far not the case. So, if you think I'm pushing my own POV over the mainstream academic POV, you're wrong.
I would hope that nobody would seriously suggest using Steiner or any organ of the anthroposophy/Steiner-Waldorf walled garden, as a source for anything, even the colour of the sky. Guy ( help! - typo?) 10:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I neither love nor hate Anthroposophy. Yes, I consider it is mainly occult claptrap, quackery and pseudoscience, but that does mean I hate Anthroposophists. Be it for the reason that people can change their ideas during their lifetime.
Leijenhorst and Hanegraaff are not your enemies, although they aren't believers in Anthroposophy either. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Steiner moved to Weimar in 1890 and stayed there until 1897. He complained bitterly about the bad salary and the boring philological work, but found the time to write his main philosophical works during his Weimar period. ... Steiner's high hopes that his philosophical work would gain him a professorship at one of the universities in the German-speaking world were never fulfilled. Especially his main philosophical work, the Philosophie der Freiheit, did not receive the attention and appreciation he had hoped for.
Now being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sourcing summaries of non-fiction texts (in articles on those texts). tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
To be more clear: I am not a Steiner scholar, so I can't provide WP:PRIMARY sources. I'm merely someone who cites WP:RS about Steiner. Wikipedia requires me to WP:CITE WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not to write WP:SCHOLARSHIP based upon WP:PRIMARY sources. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I have looked at three many other articles for comparison of sourcing for content descriptions:
Plus
It seems that the norm for descriptions of text content is to reference the original text, not to go to outside sources. Only critical reception or evaluative judgements are expected to have outside sourcing, not the actual summary. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? ( talk) 13:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
The key to Steinerian free will, or Thelemic ethics if you wish, is motive=mobile, also stated as motivation=purpose, or reason=purpose. How do I know? I read his book: it's verbatim therein. Or, stated otherwise, a free person wants to achieve a purpose because they want to achieve that purpose (out of love for action). And I don't think it was Steiner's original idea, I think he lifted it from Nietzsche. But since I do not have a WP:RS for it, the point is moot. He wrote a whole book about Nietzsche, so of course he was influenced by Nietzsche. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The pro-Steiner editors will have to decide: either they allow me to WP:CITE Marco Pasi's book about Aleister Crowley inside this article, or the citation to Rawls gets deleted.
So, either Rawls and Pasi are both allowed, or they are both disallowed. Citing only one of them is a textbook case of a double standard. Since if citing Pasi is original research, by the very same standard citing Rawls is original research. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Books by Anthroposophists are not RS. tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Seen https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/great-philosophical-debates-free-will-and-determinism.html , Steiner did not engage in such disputes. So, Steinerian "free will" does not mean "libertarian free will". tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I mean he completely dodged the determinism vs. free will debate, and the compatibilism vs. incompatibilism debate. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 March 2023. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the article as it stands at the moment we read,
'For monism in Steiner's sense there are only concepts and percepts, which, united, form the object; for the dualist there is the subject, the object, the percept, and the concept.[29] We must not conceive of the process of perception as though it is naïvely real, as we do when we take perception to be a causal effect of the things as they are in themselves on us. Metaphysical realism is the view that there is an object in the world that is imperceptible as it is in itself, but is also to be conceived naïve realistically. It 'is a contradictory mixture of naïve realism and idealism. Its hypothetical [elements] are imperceptible entities endowed with the qualities of percepts’.[30] For the monist, the process of perception is an ideal relation. The metaphysical realist, however, is left with the unanswerable question how the metaphysically real objects are converted into subjective percepts. Here Steiner can be read as giving his account of the structure and basis of what is today called the mind-body problem.
This is quite a "new research" sort of view. Should it be deleted? The reasons I ask are: (1) Steiner does not seem interested in the mind-body problem (soul-body in German; (2) Does he really think that there are no subjects, only concepts and percepts? (3) We can form a concept and a percept of our own subject, unite them, and presto! there is subject. We can do the same for some object we are looking at. Presto again: we have the mind-body problem. Thewikibeagles ( talk) 00:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Is it really desirable to list every philosopher cited in the PoF? Can we trim the list to just those who are important sources and leave off those who are merely briefly mentioned? HGilbert ( talk) 16:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
If Brentano's pupils included Edmund Husserl and Alexius Meinong, is that sufficient for either of them to be linked as a "see also", without any other mention in the article, in PoF or in Steiner's Riddles of Philosophy? Qexigator ( talk) 11:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that it deserves a place in the article, the See Also link suffices. HGilbert ( talk) 02:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The best I could find by Googlesearch (situational ethics rudolf steiner), given that Wikipedia is essentially an open access website, was American Philosophy and Rudolf Steiner: Emerson, Thoreau, Peirce, James ... edited by Robert A. McDermott [2] If there is none better, this could be added as an External link instead of the "See also" going to Fletcher. Also Rudolf Steiner: Herald of a New Epoch By Stewart Copinger Easton [3] -- Qexigator ( talk) 08:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
An editor who has drawn attention to the total inadequacy of the article on "situational ethics" so far as this article on PoF is concerned, seems to think that simply adding a reference to chapter 9 of PoF is sufficient to avoid confusing or misleading a reader. It seems fairly clear that it is not, and if anything adds to the problem. The reader, who is being informed about the content of the book in its historical context, presumably lacks prior knowledge of all or most of the article content, and care should be taken not to assume otherwise, and not to assume such prior knowledge of "situational ethics" and its relevance as that editor seems to possess. Nor can a reader's prior knowledge of or commitment to "situational ethics" be assumed.
In the pdf linked (annotated) edition, the chapter, The Idea of Freedom, starts at (print) page 135, in Part II: Practice. Let us assume that a reader, interested in Steiner's PoF, wishes to follow up the information in the article by making the link and perusing Chapter 9. Would not a reader expect to find there "situational ethics" in the author's text and notes (as translated) or in an editor's later annotation, explaining this anachronistic expression in relation to PoF? Such a reader could find a helpful annotation about Kreyenbuhl, but nothing about "situational ethics" as such. The reader ends up not knowing why s/he had been induced to go there by the "see also" link. A careful reader could draw the conclusion that this chapter, in this book, is a refutation of what has come to be termed "situational ethics", per Fletcher or others. Is that what this "see also link" is aiming at, or is it the intention to obfuscate the purport of PoF? Is there a reliable source either way? Or is this merely the intrusion of POV? Editors here will be aware that PoF is about "freedom" in a more than usually elevated meaning, or "spiritual activity", not the sort of ethics normally connected with the term "situational". The word PoF used was "intuition". Qexigator ( talk) 21:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
It can be seen that the "situational ethics" link was made when the PoF article was building, in May 2008 [4], apparently without noticing that the linked article was not suited to the content of PoF as such, which included "Steiner then introduces the principle that we can act out of the compulsions of our natural being (reflexes, drives, desires) or out of the compulsion of ethical principles, and that neither of these leaves me free. Between them, however, is an individual insight, a situational ethic, that arises neither from abstract principles nor from my bodily impulses. A deed that arises in this way can be said to be truly free; it is also both unpredictable and wholly individual." Qexigator ( talk) 08:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Edit now done. [5] -- Qexigator ( talk) 23:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The Bondarev volume is commentary, not a translation. Please do not add it back to the list of translations. HGilbert ( talk) 17:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
In connection with public discussion about PoF, there seems to have been some controversy between the two Russian born writers, Prokofieff and Bondarev, or their followers or critics, particularly in relation to their respective works in German on Steiner's work. Given that Bondarev's commentary was first published in German in 2004, Prokofieff's in 2006, and the similarity in the words of the title which the second book has to the first, the addition of the information about the German translation may help a reader of English language Wikipedia who needs clarification, that is, a reader who knows of one but not the other or knows of neither, whether or not the other writer, Oberski, whose work was published in 2010, is a party or neutral in that controversy, commenting as an educationist (2006) (Learning to think in Steiner-Waldorf schools. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology).
[6]
[7] The controversy
long ante-dates arose long after Palmer's compilation, first published in German in the 1960's. --Qexigator 10:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC) corrected by
Qexigator (
talk)
23:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that Profofieff plagiarized Bondareev? Thewikibeagles ( talk) 20:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have a new section called "Discussions" or "Commentaries" or "Controversies". Thewikibeagles ( talk) 23:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I am inclined to think not, unless other editors are able to gather from sources enough for a separate section without committing in the article the ever to be deprecated OR or SYN (which is less severely censurable in Talk). Also, the controversy is notable as showing that Steiner's work has been of continuing interest among persons of the present generations who have concerned themselves with such things as ethics and epistemology, but perhaps less notable otherwise. The current version of the article is, in my opinion, more informative (and balanced) for an ordinary reader who has but little learning in the topic than the writings of the parties to the controversy as such would be, and at the same time the article indicates directions for further study if desired, within the encyclopedic form of presentation suited to Wikipedia and the specific topic of this article, The Philosophy of Freedom. Qexigator ( talk) 00:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
A Googlesearch (rudolf steiner paul tillich) produced such instances as:
So yes, I guess the article can usefully make a "See also" link, and leave an inquiring reader free to discover which of the two, Tillich and Steiner, has published the thinner gruel (in respect of philosophical writings) compared with the other, from that reader's pov. Qexigator ( talk) 11:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Stylistically, fluent prose is usually preferred to lists and tables, but those can sometimes support the prose. My question here is: Would it be acceptable to add the following summary to the section on "Relation to earlier and later work"?
It would appear above the section which lists quotations (two so far), and the lists for English translations and for Works on The Philosophy of Freedom. Qexigator ( talk) 17:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we should have a section in chronological order listing the different editions and translations of PoF. This would be helpful esp. concerning things like changes in chapter numbering. Thewikibeagles ( talk) 16:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The Overview used to be a brief, well, overview, while the Structure section gave details. Now the two overlap considerably. Either we should jettison the overview and combine the sections into a single journey through the PoF, or we should retain the former but merge some of the detail into the parallel description in the structure section. I'm fine with either alternative. HGilbert ( talk) 10:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I have made a couple of changes - I don't think it is as simple this: if I am aware of my motives I am free. Why does thinking then come into it, if all it takes is awareness? That is actually Spinoza's position. But awareness might have no effect at all. I can be aware of my motive for wanting to hurt someone, but unable to do anything about it, for whatever reason. Thewikibeagles ( talk) 22:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we should have an Overview, which is summary, comment and so on. And then keep "STructure", but let it really be "structure": so, for example, in Part I there are seven chapters, ditto part 2, plus a final chapter. The middle chapter is "The factors of Life. Thus e.g. Ch. 3 (Thinking) and Ch 12 (Moral Imagination) have a sort of reflected relationship in 8 . . . or whatever one says, whatever view of the structure we are going to take, and the same for all the others. But let it be about structure in a straightforward and literal way. Thewikibeagles ( talk) 22:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
"Does "cockshy" (sb.) take a hyphen? I am surprised. But the idea of merging the overview and the structure sections is surely right, unless we have something genuinely structural in mind, as I said above. Thewikibeagles ( talk) 22:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
To replace "Overview" and "Structure", would the single heading "Arrangement and outline of the book" be acceptable? Or what...? with subheads: Twofold structure (first 3 paras of present "Structure)"/ Understanding freedom/ Exercising freedom. At risk of undo for something better, this has been done by... Qexigator ( talk) 13:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
In the version current at 06:58, 25 March 2014 [12] Wilson's 1964 translation is variously cited in the reflist, sometimes with chapter or page number, but page numbers do not always correlate with those in a hardback copy of the first print of 1964. Should there be uniformity, unless otherwise stated? The first ref. is near the end of "Historical context": 'Steiner argues against both hard determinism[11] and...'
Note also, ref. 10 to Ch.6 needs clarifying: is it to "Fichte, The System of Ethics IV"? Qexigator ( talk) 11:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC) This now done. [19] --- Qexigator ( talk) 06:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
We have in the historical section Steiner arguing against "soft determinism (compatiblism)". But these are not the same. Soft determinism is a form of determinism that implies compatibilism. But compatibilism is the proposition that freewill and causation are compatible. There are compatibilist indeterminists, e.g. David Lewis, who take the view that determinism is false but compatibilism is true, and hence are not soft determinists. So which was Steiner arguing against: compatibilism or soft determinism? We should decide or change our text.
Come on Qexigator - do you think that Steiner is not arguing - an example among many - against skepticism, for example, in the theory of knowledge? That is a big "ism", but it's just a name for the view that there cannot be knowledge of the world. Both compatibilism and hard determinism are clearly argued against in Steiner's text. These are and have been standard terms in philosophy for yonks, and they mean perfectly simple things - nothing to do with librarian's classifications and student's lecture notes. What on earth is lost by using a standard word or phrase for a standard thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikibeagles ( talk • contribs) 10:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
We have at the moment a quotation from McDermott:
He suggests that outer freedom arises when we bridge the gap between our ideals and the constraints of external reality, letting our deeds be inspired by the moral imagination.[2]
This seems to me vague ("bridge the gap") and inaccurate (the point about moral imagination is the way in which our ideals at the fourth level (1. instinct; 2. feelings; 3. mental pictures or thinking images; 4. pure thinking. The fourth level here coincide with the third level of the sequence: authority; the greatest possible good of mankind purely for its own sake; the progress of civilization, or the moral evolution of mankind towards ever greater perfection; the realization of individual moral aims grasped by pure intuition.
When these two coincide, what we have is not a bridge over the gap between our ideals and the driving force, but it is inaccurate to call this the bridging of the gap between our ideals and the constraints of external reality. That makes Steiner sound like a simple libertarian.
OK, if everyone's agreed, should we make a change? Thewikibeagles ( talk) 16:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The section Understanding Freedom is far too long and wordy. Can we trim this to half of its present size? That's plenty for an article of this kind. HGilbert ( talk) 01:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It is good to see the image of the title page of the first German edition [22], but its retention may be at risk if copyright clearance from the author, per metadata, [23] is not confirmed. Qexigator ( talk) 07:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
It's OK. It was published over 70 years ago AND the author died after 1923. Thewikibeagles ( talk) 15:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The image is my own scan. (1) Can someone help me go further with the WP Commons file data page . . . I'll try one more time, but I've got into a muddle with it trying to get this image sorted. (2) And the image is not very good, partly because it is a scan of a photo scan of the original, then printed. Do you know anyone who owns the original. After that, my next job is to get on with the summary of Chapters 4 and 5. Q, how did you find out who I am? Thewikibeagles ( talk) 16:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
It's the title page. Do you know Frayn's parody of Wittgenstein? And do you mean _Erich_ Heller? He wasn't a philosopher, really, more of a literary thinking. But his pieces on Wittgenstein and Nietzsche are wonderful, I agree. Thewikibeagles ( talk) 21:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I found nothing on google, except the beagle. It is a scent hound. Well, we knew that . . . Thewikibeagles ( talk) 21:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
What on earth happened to the title page image? It has vanished! Can anyone help? Thewikibeagles ( talk) 09:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
H. Gilbert, what do you think of today's (August 10 2014)? I have gone for streamlining, trimming, and trying to bring out the forward movement of the argument. But I have only worked on Part I. Thewikibeagles ( talk) 14:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Thewikibeagles: this phrasing: "On the other hand, Steiner had a strong sense of the order of epistemological exposition, and a difficulty might be that he cannot assume the concept of a spiritual being prior to the epistemology and metaphysics of The Philosophy of Freedom." seems speculative; if it cannot be sourced, it should probably be removed. Clean Copy talk 11:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I think you may be right. The sources are at the beginning of Ch. 9 and in Truth and Science. But the "speculation", as you rightly call it, about a spiritual being and so on, does take us into the weeds, though it can (sort of) be sourced. I still think there is a worry about "spiritual" if not "Wesen", though the latter does come up at the beginning of Ch. 9 and elsewhere. The simplest thing seems to avoid any problem here and delete the comment. Thx!!
The Philosophy of Freedom relies heavily upon original research based upon Steiner's own works. Reported at WP:FTN.
While a certain amount of MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR is allowed, this article is nothing else than MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR.
After 17 years, this article is not even wrong in terms of WP:PAGs. It is a collection of musings based upon Magister dixit rather than an article of a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia.
The article does not do Steiner a favor, on the contrary, it only shows how poorly received his magnum opus was. His ethics is valuable, so the poor reception is unfair, but that's the reality, and I'm not here to WP:RGW.
By "not even wrong" I mean: it could be bad stuff, it could be good stuff, but that is in no way assessable by the Wikipedians having a long track record. It's not transparent who is the authority judging Steiner's book. It seems that by and large Steiner is passing judgment upon his own book, or that some editors are citing him to that extent.
Steiner is cited copiously and the source Wilson is simply a translation of Steiner's book. The reference to Rawls is original research. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, the broad consensus at English Wikipedia is that Rudolf Steiner did not write WP:RS, and that, as a rule of thumb, anthroposophic publications are not WP:RS. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
The sheer idea of treating Steiner and Anthroposophists as reliable sources is a bit of a howler. It's a bit like using L. Ron Hubbard and his disciples as reliable sources for an article on Scientology. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 17:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the problem: Steiner was a nobody in the academia. So Wikipedia does not even remotely consider that Steiner was an academic. He utterly failed to become one, although not because of lack of trying. Again, I have WP:RS to that extent.
Wittgenstein, Goodman, and Carnap did not belong to German Idealism. Even if there were neo-kantians in the 20th century, German Idealism was essentially over.
Also, when the powers of WP:RS are against me, I very rapidly get the point. But this is by far not the case. So, if you think I'm pushing my own POV over the mainstream academic POV, you're wrong.
I would hope that nobody would seriously suggest using Steiner or any organ of the anthroposophy/Steiner-Waldorf walled garden, as a source for anything, even the colour of the sky. Guy ( help! - typo?) 10:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I neither love nor hate Anthroposophy. Yes, I consider it is mainly occult claptrap, quackery and pseudoscience, but that does mean I hate Anthroposophists. Be it for the reason that people can change their ideas during their lifetime.
Leijenhorst and Hanegraaff are not your enemies, although they aren't believers in Anthroposophy either. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Steiner moved to Weimar in 1890 and stayed there until 1897. He complained bitterly about the bad salary and the boring philological work, but found the time to write his main philosophical works during his Weimar period. ... Steiner's high hopes that his philosophical work would gain him a professorship at one of the universities in the German-speaking world were never fulfilled. Especially his main philosophical work, the Philosophie der Freiheit, did not receive the attention and appreciation he had hoped for.
Now being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sourcing summaries of non-fiction texts (in articles on those texts). tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
To be more clear: I am not a Steiner scholar, so I can't provide WP:PRIMARY sources. I'm merely someone who cites WP:RS about Steiner. Wikipedia requires me to WP:CITE WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not to write WP:SCHOLARSHIP based upon WP:PRIMARY sources. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I have looked at three many other articles for comparison of sourcing for content descriptions:
Plus
It seems that the norm for descriptions of text content is to reference the original text, not to go to outside sources. Only critical reception or evaluative judgements are expected to have outside sourcing, not the actual summary. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? ( talk) 13:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
The key to Steinerian free will, or Thelemic ethics if you wish, is motive=mobile, also stated as motivation=purpose, or reason=purpose. How do I know? I read his book: it's verbatim therein. Or, stated otherwise, a free person wants to achieve a purpose because they want to achieve that purpose (out of love for action). And I don't think it was Steiner's original idea, I think he lifted it from Nietzsche. But since I do not have a WP:RS for it, the point is moot. He wrote a whole book about Nietzsche, so of course he was influenced by Nietzsche. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The pro-Steiner editors will have to decide: either they allow me to WP:CITE Marco Pasi's book about Aleister Crowley inside this article, or the citation to Rawls gets deleted.
So, either Rawls and Pasi are both allowed, or they are both disallowed. Citing only one of them is a textbook case of a double standard. Since if citing Pasi is original research, by the very same standard citing Rawls is original research. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Books by Anthroposophists are not RS. tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Seen https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/great-philosophical-debates-free-will-and-determinism.html , Steiner did not engage in such disputes. So, Steinerian "free will" does not mean "libertarian free will". tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I mean he completely dodged the determinism vs. free will debate, and the compatibilism vs. incompatibilism debate. tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)