Talk:Anthroposophy

Double information

The paragraph "Anthroposophy's supporters include Pulitzer Prize-winning and Nobel Laureate Saul Bellow,[15] Nobel prize winner Selma Lagerlöf,[16] Andrei Bely,[17][18] Joseph Beuys,[19] Owen Barfield, architect Walter Burley Griffin,[20] Wassily Kandinsky,[21][22] Andrei Tarkovsky,[23] Bruno Walter,[24] Right Livelihood Award winners Sir George Trevelyan,[25] and Ibrahim Abouleish,[26] and child psychiatrist Eva Frommer.[27][28] Albert Schweitzer was a friend of Steiner's and was supportive of his ideals for cultural renewal.[29]" under Reception is already stated outside the subcategories. I suggest it either be removed, or placed in a separate subcategory called Notable Supporters (or something similar). FikaMedHasse (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

It isn't clear what you're saying, FikaMedHasse. Major supporters are stated in the lead (introduction) which is a summary of the main points of the body of the article, and under Reception. Why do you think that information doesn't make sense as part of Reception? (Btw, the divisions in an article are sections and subsections; "categories" and "subcategories" are something very different on Wikipedia.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I see, it makes perfect sense. I just found it a bit odd mentioning the same info twice, but having it in both the summary and the section makes sense now. FikaMedHasse (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Practical applications

My edit was partly reverted with a claim that influences would only fit for individuals, but this is actually only an extension of its influence. Presenting these as "practical applications" misleadingly promotes it as a type of science. —PaleoNeonate – 00:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What should we call the application of a philosophy to areas such as education, art, and agriculture?--I'm also not quite sure what the best term would be. These are surely practical fields of life, but perhaps there is a better way of describing it. Waldorf education, for example, or biodynamic agriculture are not simply "influenced" by Steiner and anthroposophy; they were directly founded by Steiner and are based on (not merely influenced by) his work and the work of other anthroposophical thinkers. Clean Copy^talk 16:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Original research, racism, and Steiner.

@2001:16b8:31cd:f000:95b6:86f7:1626:d305, we do not write on Wikipedia on the basis of our opinions, or our beliefs. We do so on the basis of reliable sources. Do you have sources of equal or better reliability which demonstrate that Steiner was devoid of any white supremacy or pseudoscientific theories based on race? The WP:LEAD of the article should be written as a summary of the body, and the body tells us these things are true, using reliable sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is not neutral. Examples;

1. "Anthroposophy has its roots in German idealism, mystical philosophies, and white supremacist pseudoscience."

2. "Anthroposophical medicine is a form of alternative medicine based on pseudoscientific and occult notions"

Firstly, to say that something IS based on white supremacist pseudoscience is quite a bold statement to make. How is it? "Read the citiations!", yet i doubt someone who wants to have a surface-level understanding of anthroposophy will, they will simply read "white supremacist pseudoscience" and have their entire understanding of anthroposophy tarnished by this.

Secondly, to say that something is based on pseudoscientific notions and explain nothing else about it only displays ideas of one side

This article needs improvements, as right now it shows an idea of anthroposophy through the lens of someone who disagrees with it. Criticism is good for people who want to understand, however reading or writing a page that just says "it's bad" does not benefit anyone. TWYLIVE (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

You have been served with WP:GOODBIAS at your talk page. You were also warned of discretionary sanctions. To cut a long story short, Wikipedia always chooses for mainstream science, mainstream history, mainstream medicine, mainstream social science, mainstream psychology, and mainstream psychiatry against tiny cults founded by clairvoyants.

Also, mind you that this isn't a PR-outlet, it is not meant for WP:SOAPBOXING.

If you deny that Anthroposophy peddles pseudoscience, WP:AE is just around the corner. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I note that those statements are in the intro and should be and are expanded in the body of the entry. Personally I would drop "white supremacist" as an adjective to pseudoscience in the intro since some of the pseudoscience is independent of it being racial. I also note that the US society has apparently updated its statement on diversity to admit that some earlier statements were problematic. Erp (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Erp: Not so soon,

Though raised Catholic, Büchenbacher had partial Jewish ancestry and was considered a “half-Jew” by Nazi standards. He emigrated to Switzerland in 1936. According to his post-war memoirs, “approximately two thirds of German anthroposophists more or less succumbed to National Socialism.” He reported that various influential anthroposophists were “deeply infected by Nazi views” and “staunchly supported Hitler.” Both Guenther Wachsmuth, Secretary of the Swiss-based General Anthroposophical Society, and Marie Steiner, the widow of Rudolf Steiner, were described as “completely pro-Nazi.” Büchenbacher retrospectively lamented the far-reaching “Nazi sins” of his colleagues.59

— Staudenmaier p. 18

Steiner was a member of a völkisch Wagner club, and anthroposophist authors endorsed Wagner’s views on race.45

— Staudenmaier p. 79

Dick Taverne states that Steiner was a Nazi (i.e. member of the NSDAP). 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 tgeorgescu (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

In which case the White Supremacy roots are in addition to the pseudoscience roots. However I note that Taverne does not cite a source for Steiner having joined the Nazi party so I would be wary of considering it a fact. I did scan through Staudenmaier's thesis, which since it is concentrating on Anthroposophy and the Nazi party, would certainly mention if the author knew Steiner was at any time a Nazi party member; I could not find any such reference (admittedly it was a scan so I could have missed it). He certainly mentions plenty of Steiner's followers who do later become Nazis. Also you might find Help:References_and_page_numbers#Inline_page_numbers useful and use the thesis that the Staudenmaier book is based on since the thesis is more easily available. Erp (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Erp: Yup, Staudenmaier does not say that Steiner was a member of NSDAP. But he kind of suggests that the Nazis saw Anthroposophy as Nazism's dumber sister, or something to that extent.

Otherwise, my preference goes to the book published by Brill, since it is a very reputable publisher of the academic studies of occultism (university-level studies in Western esotericism).

Of course, the big difference is that Steiner was basically a humanitarian, while the Nazis were bloodthirsty. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The Brill book is Staudenmaier also; apparently his thesis with maybe some modifications (see the acknowledgements). Taverne is Oxford University Press. I note the description at the OUP site emphasizes that it has been carefully checked as far as science, but, nothing about the checking as far as history and the subject area is Politics/International Relations not modern history. I agree there is an overlap of Anthroposophists and Nazis in Germany though the Nazi leaders were also suspicious of it (I suspect being headquartered in Switzerland so not under the control of the Nazi party didn't help). I must admit the history of the Anthroposophical Society is very scant for the years 1930-1960 except that there were splits. Erp (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, we can agree that Steiner's theories on the hierarchies of races are indeed "white supremacist". — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to the term racist and rephrase as "pseudoscience including racist pseudoscience". There is also the article on scientific racism (though anthroposophy was always considered pseudoscience by most scientists in contrast to some other hypotheses). Erp (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

To clarify some stuff: Steiner did say that Aryans were the superior race, however he never meant that Aryans should oppress other races. The former is his understanding of reality (worldview), the later is his ethics. So, yeah, he had a racialist worldview, but not a racist ethics. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Incomplete citation

The citation to Steiner's philosophy being "white supremacist" is to Staudenmaier 2014, without a title. This should be completed or removed, as there is no way of checking the source in the current format.

BTW: The only book I can find by this author in that year is "Between Occultism and Nazism", and the cited page numbers do not use any remotely similar wording. But perhaps it's another source. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Verbatim quotes have been provided at #Neutrality. If you argue that "white supremacist" is improper, then "pro-Nazi" is more proper. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

One quote is about someone named Buchenbacher. I don't see how you can attribute one person's attitudes to an entire group. The other states, "Steiner was a member of a völkisch Wagner club, and anthroposophist authors endorsed Wagner’s views on race." You cannot conclude anything other than this from this statement: Steiner was (at some period of his life?) a member of a "völkisch Wagner club," and some anthroposophist authors endorsed Wagner’s views on race.

In particular, the quotes make absolutely no claim that "anthroposophy" or "Steiner's philosophy" is white supremacist. I've hunted for some kind of WP policy on how to use sources; I'm sure there are others, but one -- WP:SYNTH -- says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Is this an example? Clean Copy^talk 14:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)