Talk:Rudolf Steiner

Racism

@Ryguy913: Take racism out of Anthroposophy, and it will crumble like a house of cards. Again, Rudolf Steiner's racism is not warmongering, nor malevolent, but he is a racist. If Steiner is an evildoer, he is so as a champion of antivaxxers, rather than as a champion of racism.

“Unambiguous exposés of quackery will inevitably appear rude to some people and hurt some feelings. This is a fact of adult life.” Kimball C. Atwood.

@Ryguy913: Why those are not facts? The WP:BURDEN is upon you to show that in the mainstream academia those do not count as facts.

You should know that Wikipedia has a low tolerance for denialism. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone - could we not consider Steiner perhaps as a notable or even leading anti-racist for his time though? He was repeatedly publicly calling for folks to struggle against prejudice based on race at a time when President Woodrow Wilson was actively segregating the US Federal Government - the Nazis quickly began to persecute him and his friends in the late 1910's and early 1920's and he was one of the first to have to actually flee the country hm

Even his contemporary critics including P. Staudenmeier, along with proponents acknowledge his vast body of anti-racist statements arguably actually far ahead of his contemporaries and predecessors if one reads Engels and co on race, for example hm https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069/1723 can also add D. McKanan at Harvard Divinity, even critic P. Staudenmeier's Cornell thesis, etc -S — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamwiseGSix (talk • contribs)

Mixed bag. See Ansgar Martins quoted in the article, among others. You do not get to push your own ideas, we merely WP:CITE WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I am seeing A. Martin's preview in the German language there - are you able to send over full source? We can for example all see Staudenmeier's full thesis .pdf and he basically is Steiner's leading academic critic right, even he recognizes many the anti-racist statements RS made.. Again he repeatedly called for folks to combat and struggle against prejudice based on race at a time when the US President was actually segregating the US Federal Government hm

The peer reviewed journal article linked above via M. Segall looks into this in greater depth and also mentions key insights for mitigating today's actual existential risks to humanity (nuclear, tech/AI etc) hm certainly curious to hear thoughts.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, e.g. AI is not germane to this article.

Again: Steiner's teachings are a mixed bag, including 18th century racism, 19th century racism and assimilationism. Of course, he was not a malign racist, he was a benevolent racist. Racist meaning he believed in a hierarchy of races. And indeed, read his Occult Science, there is no way around noticing his stance upon the hierarchy and evolution of human races. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

In tracing the history of anti-racism, in the literature of the Quakers and the Abolitionists for example, is all of their language perfect and appropriate for our time? They were nevertheless leading anti-racists for their time right..

In reading RS in the sources you mention and more - there is consistently a pointing out that such language around hierarchy is outmoded and coming from Theosophy, and will become only increasingly more inapropriate over time as humanity works to overcome racial and religious differences (he often had to lecture the Theosophists and broke away from the group in the early 1900's) but felt compelled to use some of their language early on to even reach them, language which he nevertheless criticized in the process..

Again, perhaps we might look at the language of leading anti-racists like the Quakers and the Abolitionists et al as well for comparison? Positioning him as an antiracist voice overall for his time (would you apply the similar standards for Engels or Marx et al?) does seem quite fair for NPOV standards overall here hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Engels for example did actually go as far to call for genocide hm using the Polish people as a hypothetical example, true systemic racism - perhaps we could consider additional ways of seeking to maintain neutral point of view standard overall as best we can here hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, we merely WP:CITE WP:RS. See WP:NOR and WP:RGW. The most heinous Wikipedic behavior is to defend your personal opinions. If these are your personal opinions, keep them to yourself, we are not interested. We are only interested in the opinions of WP:RS.

It is not the task of Wikipedia editors to act as Steiner's interpreters, translating from German to German.

Steiner was a very complex and sometimes convoluted thinker. Thinking that you know what he stated about Jews just because you have read five or ten books by him doesn't do. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Many of his close friends and co-workers were Jewish? Hugo Bergman, Walter Stein and more - good to see the reliable sources demonstrating the helpful comparative literature around the history of anti-racism as well, and that a consistent intellectual and universal progress for humanity/humans globally seems to be remaining in development as a possibility here overall as well hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't contradict my narrative of "mixed bag". tgeorgescu (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Well no one is perfect, right - curious to hear your thoughts re Engels and Marx on race? How might our words and actions be viewed in 100 years? Etc hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a Marxist, so I don't care about "Marx and racism". WP:NOTAFORUM. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello TGeorgescu - I have prepared this adjustment, it does contain WP:V sources without WP:OR, and is very important in maintaining NPOV for the Encyclopedia:

Both critics and proponents alike nevertheless acknowledge his extensive body of anti-racist statements, which were far more progressive in comparison with his predecessors and contemporaries still commonly cited in academia and beyond in modern times. SamwiseGSix (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Your argument: WP:PAGs such as WP:V are for Muggles, Anthroposophists are not Muggles, so the policies and guidelines don't apply to Anthroposophists writing about Steiner. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Christian Gnosticism

If you deny the application of WP:YESPOV, then answer this question: which is the opposing view? According to which WP:RS?

Some of the ten RS have been public for several decades. Who are their detractors? I don't mean detractors in general, but detractors of the claim that Anthroposophy is neognosticism. If there are dissenters, WP:CITE the dissenters.

And if you claim that Anthroposophy is neorosicrucian: there isn't a contradiction between neorosicrucian and neognostic. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The Goldwater rule

I emphatically deny that the Goldwater rule is applicable to Treher, Wolfgang. Hitler, Steiner, Schreber – Gäste aus einer anderen Welt. Die seelischen Strukturen des schizophrenen Prophetenwahns, Oknos: Emmendingen, 1966 (newer edition: Oknos, 1990). ISBN 3-921031-00-1; Wolfgang Treher Archived 2005-02-12 at the Wayback Machine.

Supporting WP:RS:

• Blom, Jan Dirk (2010). A Dictionary of Hallucinations. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. p. 99. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1223-7. ISBN 978-1-4419-1222-0. Retrieved 2012-01-11. 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.

• Blom, Jan Dirk (2010). A Dictionary of Hallucinations. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. p. 99. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1223-7. ISBN 978-1-4419-1222-0. Retrieved 2012-01-11. Clairaudience
  
  The term clairaudience comes from the French words for hearing clearly. The term is used in the parapsychological literature to denote a ∗verbal or ∗nonverbal auditory hallucination that is attributable to a metaphysical source, and is therefore interpreted as a ∗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.

• Price, John S; Stevens, Anthony (1998). "The Human Male Socialization Strategy Set". Evolution and Human Behavior. 19 (1). Elsevier BV: 57–70. doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(97)00105-0. ISSN 1090-5138. Many studies of cults and revitalization movements have noted that the leaders are susceptible both to auditory hallucinations and sudden changes in beliefs. The schizotype, we suggest, is someone who has the capacity to shed the commonly held and socially determined world view of his natal group, and to create a unique and arbitrary world view of his own, into which he may indoctrinate others and become a prophet, or fail to indoctrinate others and become a psychotic patient.

Quoted by tgeorgescu.

Steiner is dead since almost a century, he left no children or grandchildren behind, so WP:BLPSPS does not apply. WP:PARITY does apply. I don't think that the fact that Wolfgang Treher was a psychiatrist is in doubt. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Intersubjective

The clairvoyant hallucinations of Anthroposophists react similarly to high-quality eurythmy shows. So, in that sense, their clairvoyant perceptions are "intersubjective". But those are not deep insights into reality. How do I know? "By their fruits you shall know them." The scientific fruits of Anthroposophy are extremely subpar. Instead of winning the majority of the Nobel prizes, they got debunked as pseudoscientists.

I don't know any WP:RS which spell this out, so more eyes are needed. The point is made at https://theosophy.world/encyclopedia/epistemology , but that isn't a WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

A scientist

I strongly disagree that Rudolf Steiner was a scientist. By and large, he never participated in the scientific community, or, to the extent that he did, he peddled pseudoscience; he was a pseudoscientist pur sang.

As an artist: I saw his sculpture, it looks like outsider art. I'm not buying the idea that modern art has to be ugly. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You are free to add WP:RS refs that support these perspectives.Dialectric (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait, we need RS to not-include that he was a scientist? —blindlynx 17:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dialectric: There are already a dozen references in the article that what he did is pseudoscience. Anthroposophists will never accept this, because they think mainstream science is controlled by Ahriman, and mainstream scientists are essentially Muggles, so they (mainstream scientists) forfeited their constitutional right to having opinions about Anthroposophy.

Example of full-blown pseudoscience: Steiner, Rudolf (1998). Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner (PDF). Anthroposophic Press. p. 607. ISBN 0-88010--421-X. [...] for instance, an island like Great Britain swims in the sea and is held fast by the forces of the stars. In actuality, such islands do not sit directly upon a foundation; they swim and are held fast from outside. Such examples could be repeated ad nauseam. These not only show him as an ignoramus, but as someone who completely severed the contact with reality. Or, as G.B. Shaw put it about somebody else, these are a "curious record of the visions of a drug addict". Such insights about Great Britain did not come from the supernatural realm, but he simply suffered of psychosis. He was not privy to the secrets of the Seven Elohim, but he was simply psychotic.

What is then the problem, you might ask? The problem is that several Anthroposophic WP:SPAs seek to WP:CENSOR such information from Wikipedia, information which is obvious to all rational critics of Rudolf Steiner. If you ask them, this article has seen better days. But once WP:PSCI got enshrined as a website policy, its fate was doomed. I'm making this comparison with the article "Why does Wikipedia want to destroy Deepak Chopra?" Chopra might be some sort of fraudster, but he is a paragon of rationality when compared to Rudolf Steiner. They think I'm the Wikipedic Nemesis of Steiner, while in fact WP:PSCI is his Nemesis. Since WP:PSCI was promulgated, Anthroposophists lose such disputes by default. It's written in the WP:PAGs that their new religious movement should be treated like intellectual trash. They just think that's my own fault. So many years after the WP:LUNATICS message was broadcasted by Jimmy Wales urbi et orbi, they still think I'm to blame for their failures. Since if they would really understand that the mainstream academic view (and therefore the view of Wikipedia) is that Steiner was a lunatic charlatan, their whole worldview would crumble. I'm not asking them to agree with mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I just ask them to agree that that's what mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP says. Maybe due to their worldview they cannot comprehend what I'm asking and in the end it is too much to ask from them. It is pretty much like asking Jehovah's Witnesses to write objective prose about Jehovah's Witnesses: most of them just can't do it, and the few who can, fear banishment from the religion. They cannot comprehend the charge of WP:SOAPBOXING, but, yes, that's why they're editing this article. Their purpose isn't writing neutrally about Steiner, but making apologetics for their own religion. For them, presenting Steiner according to mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP means offending their religion.

If, despite their protestations, the consensus of mainstream scholarship is:

• he wasn't a genius of science;
• he wasn't a genius of agriculture;
• he wasn't a genius of medicine;

Then there is only one possibility left, namely:

• he was a lunatic charlatan.

Anthroposophists can so easily grasp that the person of Rudolf Steiner was of huge importance for the fate of humanity, and they cannot comprehend why outsiders fail to grasp that. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree 5000%. There is no evidence that Steiner participated in conventional scientific discourse, published scientific papers, ran scientific experiments, etc. He used the trappings of science to advance his own philosophical and untested ideas. We don't need sources to not say something, we need good sources which say it. I am not aware of good quality sources which say Steiner was a scientist. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, while he knew how to write philosophy, and his views about Goethean science should not be dismissed out of hand, there is no shred of evidence that he was a scientist. E.g. capillary dynamolysis has only two results at PubMed: one from 1951 and one from 1961. So, his scientific viewpoints (not referring to his viewpoints regarding knowledge theory) got no traction inside mainstream science. Capillary dynamolysis basically endorses astrology, so this is a big WP:REDFLAG for rational scientists. His positive contributions to science are either fanciful or outright delusional. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Drop the claim

@Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?: If we drop Taverne's claim, same applies to the claim of Hitler declaring "war against Steiner":

• no evidence cited;
• not a historian.

The irony is that both claims could be true, but at different points in time.

Also, Hitler's war against Anthroposophy was mainly fought through rhetoric, while the war against, say, Jehovah's Witnesses meant they were sent to concentration camps until they recant their faith. So, yes, the Nazi regime attacked Anthroposophists through propaganda rather than through the use of force, and this was especially true since Hess flew to England (before his flight, he was cancelling both avenues for attacking Anthroposophists). Anthroposophists (if deemed Aryans and not taking action against the regime) were rather lambasted than persecuted, the Jehovah's Witnesses were really persecuted. Theosophists and Ariosophists were sent to concentration camps, but not Anthroposophists. Of course, if one was a Jew or acted against the regime, being an Anthroposophist was not a get me free out of jail card.

Hitler knew he owed his success to an Anthroposophist (meaning Hess), and Himmler was willing to cherrypick what he liked from Anthroposophy.

So, what does Taverne say? He puts Steiner at an early stage of the Nazi Party, together with Martin Heidegger (and Ernst Röhm). So, there is no implication that Steiner was guilty for the Holocaust, or something like that. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Except that the statement that Hitler attacked Steiner is supported in this article by incontestible contemporary evidence, Hitler's 1921 article attacking Steiner.

This alone makes it highly unlikely that Steiner was a member of the party. Furthermore, as there is no evidence that anybody ever claimed this before Taverne, and he cites no source for it, how does he, writing almost 100 years later, know this? With no chain of evidence? Taverne is also not a historian, and as such has no claim to be a reliable source for an otherwise unsupported historical statement. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?: As our article says, Völkischer Beobachter was very much a mixed bag in respect to Anthroposophy. The Nazi Party was not ideologically monolithic in respect to Anthroposophy. Nazis knew that Anthroposophy overlapped with Nazism, they were only debating if this was "good" or "bad". See the footnote stating "Movements like anthroposophy, from this point of view, represented unwelcome competition." tgeorgescu (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Once more: There is no evidence that Steiner was a member of the Nazi party. An unsupported claim by a non-historian 100 years later is not a reliable source. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?: You fail to see that "no evidence" is in the same boat with "mixed bag". So, both claims have to stay, or both claims have to go. Decide.

Otherwise it's WP:RULES for thee, but not for me. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

In the case of mixed evidence, we should (and in this case already do) cite both sides.

I feel we are stuck, so have listed this on Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. I for one would appreciate other eyes on this. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?: Just a reminder: Taverne got published at Oxford University Press, while the claim of "war against Steiner" is churnalism at best and WP:CITOGENESIS at worst.

Wikipedia regards individuals as reliable sources in their field. Taverne was a Member of Parliament. Do we really want to consider a novel historical claim, with no cited evidence to back it up, by an MP? If it were so, other evidence would be citable. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?: Again, I do not necessarily plead for keeping the citation, but the application of such principle should be coherent and strike both claims. If anything, Oxford University Press is much more reliable than a newspaper. So, if the citation to OUP has to be deleted, then certainly the citation to the newspaper has to be deleted. Saying otherwise is a double standard. While the citation to OUP uses WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, the citation to the newspaper is stated in the voice of Wikipedia. So, certainly, something is not right about these citations. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hitler persecuted the Jews, the Roma, the Slavs, the leftists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, but he only lambasted the Anthroposophists. The Sicherheitsdienst was convinced that Anthroposophy was a danger, but the Gestapo wasn't persuaded. And the Gestapo had the power to persecute people, not the Sicherheitsdienst.

"War against Steiner" is mentioned here. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed both claims as being unreliably sourced. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

"War against Steiner" was introduced at [1], several months before the newspaper article, so it is definitely WP:CITOGENESIS. The editor WP:CITED https://web.archive.org/web/20060103040648/http://www.anthroposophy.com/aktuelles/wiesberger.html , which is not a reliable source, and it does not say that "war against Steiner" was Hitler's POV. Instead it claims it was published in a German Catholic nationalist newspaper. Since in 1921 Anthroposophy was already considered a heresy, it is not difficult to understand why Catholics wanted to fight against Steiner. But, again, that makes it a Catholic POV, not a Nazi POV. Nobody said that Catholics cannot be nationalists. A Catholic newspaper condemning a heretical religion is nothing out of the ordinary, and it wasn't a Nazi POV. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion

David Tornheim (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by tgeorgescu

Taverne is more reliable than Garner, since OUP is higher on the pecking order than The Independent. Either both claims should be kept, or both claims should be deleted. "He is not a historian and he cites no evidence" applies to both Taverne and Garner. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?

Taverne is not reliable because he is not a historian and cites no evidence in support of his claim. Garner is reliable because there is evidence to that extent. My view (tgeorgescu) is that such evidence still has to be WP:CITED in order to make Garner look reliable. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion by David Tornheim

I'm not promising to provide a third opinion at this point, so I haven't removed it from the WP:3O#Active disagreements. If someone else wants to give the third opinion ahead of me, please feel free!
I can't tell exactly what source(s) you are arguing about. I know one was published at Oxford University Press, which should be a reliable source on many topics. I see something about "Taverne". I don't know who that is. Can you please explain in the appropriate sections? Please focus on the WP:RS and why you think it is or is not reliable. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: The sources are:

• Taverne, Dick (2006). The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy, and the New Fundamentalism. OUP Oxford. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-19-157861-8. Retrieved 3 February 2022. Rudolf Steiner joined the Nazi party in its early days
• Garner, Richard (24 January 2007). "The Big Question: Who was Rudolf Steiner and what were his revolutionary teaching ideas?". The Independent. Retrieved 26 October 2023.

It is true that Taverne does not say how he obtained that information. The Garner article is quite probably WP:CITOGENESIS. See above, "war against Steiner" was published verbatim at Wikipedia months before that newspaper article. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems like speculation about where Garner got the information. I would think a journalist would know better than grab it from Wikipedia (or anyone else who simply cited Wikipedia) as "fact". Is "War against Steiner" the only language that is being proposed for this article and sourced to Steiner?

Also, I wonder if rather than using WP:3O, one of you might put this at WP:RSN, since it appears to be entirely about the reliability of Garner? Then it might get more eyes. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: Looking at the above arguments, I agree that it cannot be completely verified whether or not the statement is true, and the source got it right, however, it also cannot be verified to be untrue, and that the source got it wrong. Maybe include both claims, and directly attribute them both, along with their source of publication. "Taverne from Oxford University Press says...", "Garner from The Independent says....", while being careful not to discredit either. Encyclopedically documenting both viewpoints, noting possible disagreement, and allowing it to appear uncertain, for readers to make up their own minds. If we can unequivocally prove one source in particular to be unreliable in this regard, we can drop it.

DarmaniLink (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Tgeorgescu Thanks for creating the WP:RSN entry (WP:RSN#Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy). I suggest you give Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? a chance to state their view in their section rather than articulating their view for them. I would move your comment about what you think they believe from your section back into your section. When I first read it, I was confused, because I had assumed it was them speaking rather than you. I would do the same at the WP:RSN entry before someone replies. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Tgeorgescu One more thing. Rather than simply copying and pasting this discussion verbatim to WP:RSN, I would make the case at RSN per the RSN rules:

"Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports."

I think providing this simple version would make it easier to understand. Then link to this discussion rather than have two copies of it. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)