Talk:Anthroposophy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Needs work to become even remotely objective

This article reads like one giant promo for Anthroposophy. It goes on and on and on about every minute detail of this rather obscure belief system with all the analysis of an advertising brochure. For an article about the same size as the one for the Catholic Church (which has over 1 billion followers), there's no critiques, criticism or even solid demographic data. The only area that's less than glowing about Anthroposophy is the section about how it's not borne out by science, but it weasels out of that by saying it's not really meant to be, after all.

I believe in more information, not less, so I'm not suggesting cutting down the article. I just think it desperately needs some more balanced sections to show how other groups view Anthroposophy, how many people identify with it, and overall adjust to tone to Encylopedic, not Persuasive. The Cap'n (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree; it would benefit from a more balanced treatment. It's hard to find balance with some fringe subjects, though, because mainstream reliable sources may pay little attention to them. You won't find many astronomy papers making detailed rebuttals of the moon-made-of-green-cheese theory! bobrayner (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been a long-standing concern. The arbitrators of an arbitration proceeding about this and related articles set out a clear requirement for a high standard of verifiable sourcing for any opinion or controversial description in any anthroposophy/Waldorf-related articles. The article now reflects the available academic and professional evaluations of the subject; if there are more verifiable sources do add them! hgilbert (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Evolution

Something really should be added about the Anthroposophical teaching of evolution which is completey spiritual and completey opposed to Darwinism. According to Steiner souls existed on other planets in spiritual worlds and in astral / etheric states etc etc before they incarnated into humans. Also man existed according to steiner millions of years ago much older than is accepted by the mainstream, dinosaurs and man co-existed etc, and different races of man came from the lost lands such as Atlantis and Lemuria etc. Also according to anthroposophy all animals originally derived off the "prototype form" or archtype man, so infact this is devolution. The human form according to the anthroposophical teaching, is the ancestor of all other forms of life. This is the reverse of the Darwinian perspective. CastleWolfenstein (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit more complex than that, actually; Steiner was a strong proponent of Haeckel's conception of evolution, which is quite close to Darwin's own.

You are right that Steiner suggested that human beings existed for millions of years, contrary to the accepted science of his time. Anthropology has caught up here, however; we now recognize that early proto-humans extend back at least 6 million years, and it's an open-ended question how much further back this will be set, given the rapid changes in the field over the last decades.

Perhaps the most important of all these points, however, is that animals are regarded as devolutions from an archetypal form (as evidenced by foetal evolution -- in which early stages of animals are much more similar to each other, and to human forms, than later stages) rather than the human form. I'll try to add something here. hgilbert (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Do they even teach Steiners theory of evolution in Steiner schools or Waldorf education? Thesedays it seems to of been completey forgotten, it is rarely mentioned, I have seen little mention of it. There seems to be a few books in which Steiner discusses spiritual evolution and the formation of life on earth, for example in Cosmic Memory, The Story of Atlantis, Lemuria and the Division of the Sexes. It is very complex to understand all of Steiners teachings on this and it will be hard to summarise it all in just a few words. But there were some anthroposophists who were actually either biologists or ecologists etc for example Wolfgang Schad has written the book Man and Mammals which seems to be the classic anthroposophy teaching on animal evolution, these books seem quite old and obsure though, not many people seem to know about them but would be good for a reference. I noticed you used the book Verhulst, Jos (2003). Developmental Dynamics as a reference. What is the unspecialized form or archetypal form which all animals evolved from though? Are we talking here about an immaterial astral or some kind of spiritual entity which is proto-human? It seems the theosophists also hold similar ideas, also Richard Owen did with his theory of idealistic morphology. Is there a main anthroposophy textbook which discusses the Steiner teaching of evolution? CastleWolfenstein (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Waldorf schools normally avoid teaching Steiner's theories; they stick to empirically-experientially based understanding (Goethean phenomenology). Man and Mammals would be a good source. This and Verhulst are good sources for anthroposophic evolutionary ideas...there aren't really anthroposophic textbooks. hgilbert (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been looking for other sources and I came across this: “For instance, one of the most virulent attacks on Darwinism in the past decade came from the anthroposophist Norman Macbeth: Darwin Retried” Source: Journal of social and biological structures, Volume 5, Academic Press, 1982, p. 200. Norman Macbeth has authored the book Darwin Retried which is a page by page attack on darwins theory. According to the source Macbeth is an anthroposophist I also looked up his name, he appears to have appeared in some prefaces to some reprints of Steiners work. Do you know anything about Macbeth? I have not read his book yet. CastleWolfenstein (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The book was published in the '70s, and from its reviews appears to be a critique of aspects of Darwin's theory, many of which have been superseded by developments in biology since Darwin's time. I doubt it is particularly noteworthy in the context of this article. hgilbert (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Spiritual science based upon hallucinations — psychiatric criticism

Clairvoyance

Also known as lucidity, telesthesia, and cryptestesia. Clairvoyance is French for seeing clearly. The term is used in the parapsychological literature to denote a * visual or * compound hallucination attributable to a metaphysical source. It is therefore interpreted as * telepathic, * veridical or at least * coincidental hallucination.

Reference
Guily, R.E. (1991) Harper's encyclopedia of mystical and paranormal experience. New York, NY: Castle Books.

— Jan Dirk Blom, A Dictionary of Hallucinations, p. 99

Source: [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In other words, "he also urged others to follow a spiritual training that would allow them directly to apply the methods he used eventually to achieve comparable results.<ref name="Schneider"/>" means that Steiner urged people to have hallucinations in order to agree with his teachings. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's a classic case of WP:Original research, in particular a synthesis of published material that advances a position. We can't use one person's definition of clairvoyance compounded with a second person's reference to clairvoyance to interpret a third person's experiences....hgilbert (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Now I understand why some people have a hard time on Wikipedia: Steiner claimed to be clairvoyant (this can be shown with reliable sources), clairvoyance is hallucination (as shown above by a reliable source), but unless I find a reliable source saying that Steiner had hallucinations, his clairvoyance cannot be shown to be hallucination. It's of course a matter of verifiability, not truth, which I otherwise consider a good policy. I am at least content with introducing the above quote in the article clairvoyance, where it does not constitute original research, since the reliable source directly discusses the subject of that article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Definitely original research. Your proposed addition, above, is also not information that belongs in an encyclopedia. For more on this, you could take a look at WP:NOT (WP is not a dictionary, not a publisher of original thought, and not an indiscriminate collection of information). A quick refresher on key WP policies may make life go easier... for some. Sunray (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In my simple mind I believed that if clairvoyance is hallucination, this holds for any person who is clairvoyant. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. Even if one person can be shown to have claimed that wishes are horses, this doesn't mean the beggars should start harnessing up. hgilbert (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I have provided a reliable source which affirms the medical consensus. So, it's not a matter of "if wishes were horses", it is a matter that I have not produced a reliable source which says that Rudolf Steiner had hallucinations. What I have shown is that everybody who is clairvoyant has hallucinations. I understand that making the straightforward logical step of deducing that this applies to Rudolf Steiner would be synthesis of published sources, so this is why I did not revert your reverting of my contribution. However, any licensed psychiatrist could testify that "clairvoyance is hallucination" is a mainstream medical theory, even if he/she personally would disagree with the mainstream. If you have any doubts about this, consult any non-fringe psychiatrist and tell him/her that you are clairvoyant. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I just consulted several; all agree that clairvoyance experiences may have nothing to do with hallucinations.

The great thing is that I was able to consult with them from the comfort of my desk, as I happen to be clairvoyant. ; ) hgilbert (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories

Wikipedia:Categories#Articles states clearly that "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." Categorizing this as pseudoscience is certainly likely to spark controversy and so clearly violates the guideline. hgilbert (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a misinterpretation of the guideline. It says that controversial categories should be converted into list articles. It doesn't tell you t remove categories from articles just because they are controversial. A properly sourced "defining" category should always stay in an article, even if some editors consider it controversial. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy

The article asserts that Anthroposophy is a philosophy. Are there any reliable sources backing this claim? Wikipedia has this to say on philosophy: "Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument". I would like to dispute the claim that (1) A. is systematic in its approach, as well as the claim (2) that it is reliant on rational argument. Anthroposophy is a revealed "truth", essentially a doctrine of faith discovered (invented?) by Steiner. 90.129.23.220 (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Both citations at the end of that sentence are to sources that confirm this. Britannica starts its article on anthroposophy as follows: "anthroposophy, philosophy based on the premise that the human intellect has the ability to contact spiritual worlds."

Of course, one could claim that any philosophy is a revealed truth, a doctrine of faith; how can we empirically prove Plato's cave metaphor, or Aristotle's ethical theories, or Husserl's bracketing and epoche? hgilbert (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Links to Anthroposophical Societies

These links have been removed; the edit summary suggests looking at WP:EL. This policy suggests including official links meeting these criteria:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

These seem to be met by the Anthroposophical Societies' own web pages. Should the links be restored?hgilbert (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Not restore: compare with - Theosophy, Theosophical Society, Anthroposophical Society, Royal Society, Royal Academy of Arts etc. etc. Qexigator (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

They all have links to the official website(s). hgilbert (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Not quite: compare Theosophy with Anthroposophy and Theosophical Society with Anthroposophical Society. I have added a similar cap link to Anthroposophy. Qexigator (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Racism

This article appears to whitewash, no pun intended, the racist beliefs of Steiner as if they were a mere product of his time. Racism is an inherent part of anthroposophy. That Steiner was racist is not an opinion but a fact. Steiner believed the white race was superior to the black and Asian races. Why not include some actual quotes from Steiner concerning race:

“On one side we find the black race, which is earthly at most. If it moves to the West, it becomes extinct. We also have the yellow race, which is in the middle between earth and the cosmos. If it moves to the East, it becomes brown, attaches itself too much to the cosmos, and becomes extinct. The white race is the future, the race that is spiritually creative.”

In relation to this quote it is often referenced on the web as coming from 'The Being of Man and His Future Evolution'. The full text for which (in English translation) is available here http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/BeingEvol/19090503p01.html. However searching through this book I cannot find this (or an approximately equivalent) quote. Just trying to get at original sources here, maybe someone can enlighten me. Utunga (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

“The Jews have a great gift for materialism, but little for recognition of the spiritual world.”

“Negroes” are “decadent" and “completely cut themselves off from the spiritual world”

“[I]f we give these Negro novels to pregnant [white] women to read, then it won’t even be necessary for Negroes to come to Europe in order for mulattos to appear. Simply through the spiritual effects of reading Negro novels, a multitude of children will be born in Europe that are completely gray, that have mulatto hair, that look like mulattos!”

"Today's red and black races descend from abnormal humans and have not participated in the evolution led by whites"

“If you look at pictures of the old American Indians the process of ossification is evident in the decline of this race ... [A] representative of these old American Indians still preserves a memory of that great Atlantean civilization [i.e., the civilization of Atlantis] which could not adapt itself to later evolution ... The Atlantean had not assimilated all that the Venus, Mercury, Mars and Jupiter Spirits [i.e., gods] brought about in the East, to whom we owe all the civilizations which reached their zenith in Europe ... The descendant of the brown race did not participate in this development.”

https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/steiners-racism

Smiloid (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

He was indeed a racialist. If he was a racist it's more complicated, because he did not advocate fight between races or oppression of people of other races than white, instead he (in his own awkward way) sought to help them evolve, and saw whites as having a role in making other races evolve. Anyway, direct quotes from Steiner are considered original research according to ArbCom. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And the Anthroposophical Society is and was open to people belonging to all races, therefore they don't discriminate. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A detailed arbitration proceeding (see header) excluded the use of Steiner quotes here and in other anthroposophy-related articles. Can you find reliable sources other than those already cited? hgilbert (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If not I suggest that the tag should be removed. hgilbert (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Any comments, pro or con the tag, or suggestions as to how to alter the article using secondary and tertiary reliable sources? Otherwise this seems a clear case of drive-by tagging. hgilbert (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

From what I understand any problems Hitler may have had with Anthroposophy did not mean that they disagreed on the matters of race but that Hitler considered it a threat to his dominance. Contrary to the false implications of this article Anthroposophy is as racist as National Socialism. Smiloid (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It's strange, then, that the Waldorf school in South Africa a welcomed children of all races even during apartheid.

You need to find WP:reliable sources, then their evaluations can be included. hgilbert (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"It's strange, then, that the Waldorf school in South Africa a welcomed children of all races even during apartheid." The old "some of my best friends are black" defense Smiloid (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you realize what the National Socialists did. Welcoming people of all races, religious convictions, political beliefs, and ethnic backgrounds into the schools was not really what they were famous for. hgilbert (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a very clear refutation of racial terminology given by Rudolf Steiner himself: "That is why it is absolutely essential to understand that our anthroposophical movement is a spiritual one. It looks to the spirit and overcomes the effects of physical differences through the force of being a spiritual movement. Of course, any movement has its childhood illnesses, so to speak. Consequently, in the beginning of the theosophical movement the earth was divided into seven periods of time, one for each of the seven root races, and each of these root races was divided into seven sub-races. These seven periods were said to repeat in a cycle so that one could always speak of seven races and seven sub-races. However, we must get beyond the illness of childhood and clearly understand that the concept of race has ceased to have any meaning in our time." Full analysis can be found here: http://defendingsteiner.com/misconceptions/r-race.php 83.84.227.137 (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

In the Dutch TV show Hokjesman, http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/afleveringen/1327665 , a cultural anthropologist asked a librarian from a large Dutch book shop if there any objective books about anthroposophy and she answered "as far as I know, there are no such books" or something like that. So, the problem is that there are almost no third-party, objective sources about anthroposophy, that's why people tend to do original research or trust sources like "we from the WC duck recommend the WC duck". Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

6 months have gone by since the NPOV tag, and not a single source has been supplied to support the claim. I am removing the tag pending a real, source-based discussion here. HGilbert (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Evolution

This is a complex topic, given the cycles within cycles of anthroposophy's descriptions. I've tried to clarify the description using terminology that is less confusing (Steiner emphasizes that what he calls planets are nothing like our present conception, so using the word without long explanations is pretty misleading --I've tried to work around this.) a good source should be found, however. HGilbert (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)