Talk:The Philosophy of Freedom

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Mind-Body Problem

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)[reply]

List of philosophers cited

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)[reply]

All those mentioned in the article are significantly notable in their own right, and were specifically selected by Steiner in this work for reasons which he, the author, must have considered significantly relevant to it. What editor of this article is competent to decide which to omit, if any, without POV or SYN? Let Steiner speak for himself. He mentioned many others in "Riddles of Philosophy".[1] --Qexigator (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- but some are critiqued, some praised, some are irrelevant. I have moved the whole list to a later section. HGilbert (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted all of the philosophers, because the list sort of sticks out as a list to no purpose. I think it would be much better to have the philosophers in the book introduced as they appear in the argument. That is the normal practice. Thewikibeagles (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the page on Kant's First Critique. That is a fairly good model I think for a wikipedia page devoted to a work of philosophy. Thewikibeagles (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brentano's pupils

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)[reply]

Well, yes, actually. Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also_section says The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. Please restore these links. HGilbert (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, not without something more, which so far has not been supplied. Mention of the general guidance is not sufficient to justify any particular application. In this case, if there is nothing more to connect PoF with the philosophical work of Husserl, an interested reader is better advised to make the link first to Brentano and follow up the further biographical information about Husserl if so inclined. It is no help to advise "See also" if there is no indication of the connection that can be seen, either in the article making the link or in the one linked, or indirectly in a source. And what reason is there for singling out Situational ethics and advising a reader to look there, as if there were some discernible and notable connection with PoF. Is it proposed that PoF should be added as "See also" in the Situational ethics article? But I see nothing there that claims to be connected with PoF, directly or indirectly. Qexigator (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What don't you understand about "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."? This is WP policy. HGilbert (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not aware that what matters is discriminating application, and not repetition of general guidance while avoiding the merits of points under discussion. Why is a person or topic to be singled out for "see also", from, in this case, an almost endless list of other possibles for casually or tangentially naming, according to anyone's point of view or synthesis of information of which that person happens to have knowledge? If you have anything useful to say about that, please do. Qexigator (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because his ethics is clearly an example of situational ethics, which merely means that the ethical principles are to be adapted to the situation at hand, rather than being absolutes. The whole idea of moral imagination is exactly this. See this if you don't believe me. (That's not meant to be a citeable source, just an indication that this is a more widely accepted relationship.) HGilbert (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Husserl goes, they were both phenomenological philosophers building in similar ways on German idealist philosophy; see the citation I placed on the page and Alessandro Di Grazia's Osservazioni sulla nozione di Io in Rudolf Steiner e Edmund Husserl HGilbert (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the above, the article's encyclopedic character could be improved by inserting (without further comment):
Fletcher has nothing to do with this.

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)[reply]

The link to situational ethics mentions Fletcher in the first line. If that has nothing to do with it, then the link should not be there at all. It is no better than random "noise", which, of course, should not be said of Husserl. Qexigator (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article on situational ethics needs work -- the theme is not specific to Fletcher; see any other reference on the theme. That's a separate problem, however.
I've added a citation, though you really need to comprehend the meaning of do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article. HGilbert (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are again mistaken. One who is prone to impute to those who differ a deficient understanding on such a point in such a way could do better to reflect more carefully. Bolding does not help your case, with which I do not concur. Unintentionally, you are expressing yourself as if the sole authority or arbiter, and this is not helpful to improving the article. It may be that another's ongoing edits will ere long eliminate the need for the edits which, for the reasons above and below, I am minded to make. The link to the current version of the situational ethics article was plainly wrong and should not have been put back. Qexigator (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"situational ethics" and PoF

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edit now done.[5] --Qexigator (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the Situation ethics page; perhaps this will clarify the situation.
If you read Fletcher's own book on the subject, he describes the wide discussion of the theme that preceded his own work. Most of this was in German; thus his work made a large impression on the English-speaking audience unfamiliar with the long-existing theme. HGilbert (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much improved. Qexigator (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Translations

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)[reply]

Yes, good point, a new translation by Rickett, but mainly commentary. Qexigator (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The translation is of Bondarev's commentary, not of the PoF. HGilbert (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commentaries

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)[reply]

Note: The above had two unintended errors. 1_The "similarity" was meant to refer to the book's title not content (the omission may have led to the question below). 2_The Palmer book was published long before the controversy arose. A further error was not picking up the hint in the question below. Qexigator (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that Profofieff plagiarized Bondareev? Thewikibeagles (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(See later Note above) No, as I understand information which can be garnered via internet and/or print sources, the two Russians see themselves, and are seen, as antagonists, such that one has been treated as persona non grata by the Goetheanum, heroically in the estimation of some, while the other was appointed to the Goetheanum with plaudits. A reader who is not a partisan and with no more than superficial knowledge of the controversy (which may have been conducted mainly in German and among German speakers and writers), may surmise that the later publication was not so much an actual rebuttal of the other's as an attempt to reassure its author's followers. To the extent that the later title looks a near copy of the earlier, it may be taken as sincerely flattering. In such circumstances is it more or less likely that the content of the later work is a plagiary of the earlier? Qexigator (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should have a new section called "Discussions" or "Commentaries" or "Controversies".Thewikibeagles (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tillich?

A Googlesearch (rudolf steiner paul tillich) produced such instances as:

  • Toward Wholeness: Rudolf Steiner Education in America By Mary Caroline Richards[8]
  • The Religious Situation by Paul Tillich[9] (This includes an inaccuracy about The Christengemeinschaft, as having "split off" from Anthroposophy, but the comments are not irrational from that writer's evident point of view about "the place of faith in the divine paradox", while others may consider that writer to have missed the point).
  • Rudolf Steiner: An Illustrated Biography, Johannes Hemleben: " Thirty years later the Protestant theologian Paul Tillich put into these words what Steiner had expressed: 'If the ..."[10]
  • There Is a Garden in the Mind: A Memoir of Alan Chadwick and the Organic Movement, Paul A. Lee, blurb: "He traces the contributions and insights of Goethe, the philosophers Paul Tillich and Rudolf Steiner, ecologist Rachel Carson, and many others."[11]

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)[reply]

A summary list?

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"?

Steiner's principal works on philosophy, and what he said or wrote about the relationship between them and his other works, in summary:
  • 1886 The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World-Conception. The foundation and justification, epistemologically, for all Steiner said and wrote after this book's publication.
  • 1892 Truth and Science.
  • 1894 The Philosophy of Freedom. This presented the philosophical foundations for what had been outlined in Truth and Science, and it contained, in a philosophical form, the entire content of what Steiner had (after the first publication in 1894) developed explicitly as anthroposophy.
  • 1914 A Brief Outline of an Approach to Anthroposophy - chapter 8 of the book The Riddles of Philosophy Presented in an Outline of Its History.

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)[reply]

Sounds fine. Even better would be a source describing the relationship between the various works, which would enable some fluent prose...perhaps McDermott and/or Zander? HGilbert (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that either of those would do it, free from pov, whether for or against. Perhaps there is a work in German not yet in English. But even if there were added to the section something which could be so sourced, the list could help the prose to be concise. So, if OK, let it be there, as a presentation of the bare facts, already sourced in the prose of the section. Qexigator (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are forgetting _Goethe the Scientist_. Thewikibeagles (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please propose reliable source/s for such published information which has been accepted as accurate, comprehensive, up to date and free from error. Qexigator (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overview and structure

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)[reply]

Agreed one or other of those. May I suggest agreeing main heading and sub-headings for revised structure before moves and merges? Qexigator (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A tentative proposal (in other words, a cock-shy) (see note below):
  • 1_Move and shorten first sentence from "Overview" to be last sentence of second para. at top, to read: 'The book's subtitle, Some results of introspective observation following the methods of Natural Science,[--] describes the philosophical method Steiner intends to follow.' in tackling the question of human freedom
  • 2_Move and shorten first para. from "Structure" to be new third para. at top, to read: 'In the first part of The Philosophy of Freedom, the book Steiner discusses freedom in thinking, and the question of thinking's reliability as a means to knowledge, i.e. the epistemology of freedom. In the second part of the book, which depends on the first, he examines the conditions necessary for freedom of action.[26] This twofold structure partly parallels Hegel's description of freedom: "Ethical life is the Idea of freedom as the living good which has its knowledge and volition in self-consciousness, and its actuality through self-conscious action." [28]
  • 3_After the first section, "1 Historical context", let the second be "2 Structure", and let this be divided into two subsections, which could either have the present titles "Understanding freedom" and "Exercising freedom", or the titles of the two Parts of the book.
  • 4_Let the text be distributed between the subtitles accordingly.
Qexigator (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: "cock-shy" per New Shorter OED, 1993 edition. See also Cock-shying. Qexigator (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Given a lead briefly but sufficiently topping the article as a whole in the usual fashion, and agreement to combine the first two sections of the current version, then let the first section, with its subsections, report the content sequentially. An "overview" section would not be required. At most, the first initial subsection could simply introduce the "structure" of the subsections to follow, and possibly draw something from the author's prefatory remarks. At all points, especially in this combined section, readers should be enabled to see what is being presented as report of content and what (if any) as comment drawing on introductory remarks of a translator or editor, such as Wilson. Qexigator (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1_ and 2_ above have now been upgraded, noting and allowing for recent edits, from tentative to (boldly?) done by...Qexigator (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings

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)[reply]

Reflist

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...'

  • ref. 11 Rudolf Steiner, The Philosophy of Freedom: The Basis for a Modern World Conception, (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1964), ed. Michael Wilson, hereafter "Wilson", Ch. 9
  • ref 12. Wilson, Ch. 1, (esp. p. 8). The word determinism is not on the page, making this (strictly) an unsourced comment on the author's work.
  • ref 16 quote in note at end of first paragraph, Chapter 4[13], but which edition?
  • ref.17 Wilson, p. 9. I see the quoted words on p.11
  • ref.18 Wilson, p. 19. words quoted not seen on p.19.
  • ref.19 Wilson, p. 23. ok
  • ref.20 Wilson, p. 26. ok
  • ref.21 Wilson, p. 25. nothing on p.25 about triangles.
  • ref.22 Wilson, p. 27. the quoted words are on p.27
  • ref.23 Wilson, p. 28. the quoted words are on p.28
  • ref.24 Wilson, p 30 words quoted are a variant compared with 1964 first print, adding two words thus: "My investigation first touches firm ground only when I find an object which exists in a sense of which I can derive from the object itself. But I am myself such an object in that I think..."
Edits for above now done, with chapter headings added for information and for identification whatever edition a reader has to hand or views on line.[14] --Qexigator (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref. 27 a,b, c. is to Steiner, Rudolf (1999). Michael Wilson, ed. The Philosophy of Freedom: The Basis for a Modern World Conception. But which edition and which publisher? Steiner Books[15] or [16] or [17] 7th English edition 1964 reprinted 2006 ?
  • ref. 28 links to 8th English edition 2011 "Re-edited "to mark the 150th anniversary" of Steiner's birth, with Foreword by Matthew Barton[18]

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)[reply]

Soft determinism or compatibilism?

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.

The present version reads: "Steiner argues against both hard determinism< ref > ... Rudolf Steiner, The Philosophy of Freedom: The Basis for a Modern World Conception, (London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1964), ed. Michael Wilson, hereafter "Wilson", Ch. 9 "The Idea of Freedom... < /ref > and soft determinism (or compatibilism).< ref > ...Wilson, Ch. 1 "Conscious Human Action"... < /ref >" These chapters do not mention determinism or compatabilism, and no source for mentioning these terms is cited. The intrusion of any such category in this context is out of place and should be removed. Such editorial labelling here adds nothing useful to the content of the work which is being described, whether or not it could guide librarians. It may be due to a point of view which is more concerned with pre-conceived notions of classification than with letting readers be informed about what Steiner himself has written, or to have derived from a student's lecture notes. It is no more than to say, that this work, which has been written for publication in print, has been produced in both hard back and soft cover, and, in recent years, in electronic form. Steiner's work is not arguing for or aganist this or that "-ism", other than for "ethical individualism". What he had written is translated (p.8), "We have distinguished between the knower and the doer and have left out of account precisely the one who matters most of all - the knowing doer. Qexigator (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+ Nor is determinism mentioned in the articles for the philosophers named in this article, except Spinoza, rebutted in chapter 1 of PoF, and Hume who is mentioned at the end of Steiner's 1918 Appendix, rebutting Hartman's comment that in PoF Steiner had attempted to combine Hegel's universalistic panlogism with Hume's individualistic phenomenolism. But the point is sufficiently covered in the linked article for "Free will". Qexigator (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC) + Qexigator (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hound on a false scent? Look again at my remarks above, to which, maybe, there should now be added: to my mind, for reasons apparent from the descriptions about Steiner's work in the text of the article, applying labelism to it is even less informative than usual, especially for general readers, but also for students, their teachers, specialists and classifying labellers of all kinds. PoF: Appendix Added to the new edition, 1918[20]: "The transcendental realist will have nothing whatever to do with the true state of affairs regarding the process of knowledge; he cuts himself off from the facts by a tissue of thoughts and entangles himself in it. Moreover, the monism which appears in The Philosophy of Freedom ought not to be labeled “epistemological”, but, if an epithet is wanted, then a “monism of thought”. All this has been misunderstood by Eduard von Hartmann. He has ignored all that is specific in the argumentation of The Philosophy of Freedom, and has stated that I have attempted to combine Hegel's universalistic panlogism with Hume's individualistic phenomenalism, whereas in fact The Philosophy of Freedom has nothing whatever to do with the two positions it is allegedly trying to combine. (This, too, is the reason why I could not feel inclined, for example, to go into the “epistemological monism” of Johannes Rehmke. The point of view of The Philosophy of Freedom is simply quite different from what Eduard von Hartmann and others call epistemological monism.)" Qexigator (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twofold Structure

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.

Broadly agree. Qexigator (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if everyone's agreed, should we make a change? Thewikibeagles (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note also in Free will article: "...inner freedom is achieved when we bridge the gap between our sensory impressions, which reflect the outer appearance of the world, and our thoughts, which give us access to the inner nature of the world." Qexigator (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blah-blah-blah

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)[reply]

Broadly agree, but subject to taking into account the quote from the appendix.[21] It is a counter to would-be labellers, and is notable in itself to demonstrate the type of argument Steiner was contending with at and after the first publication, and persisting for example among those who mistakenly classify Steiner alongside others such as Husserl and "phenomenlogy". It is informative for readers who may stlil find that sort of thing in secondary and tertiary works that have not caught up with Welburn's commentary, let alone with Steiner himself. Qexigator (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Title page image

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)[reply]

It's OK. It was published over 70 years ago AND the author died after 1923. Thewikibeagles (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But if the author of the image is the person named in metadata, that person could be a philosopher "inexplicably elected a Permanent Member of" an Oxford college SCR, or another person (Yossarian? Washington Irving?) using the same name. There may be some sort of Catch-22 operating, which a philosopher could surmount but another person could not. Can copyright clearance be confirmed to the satisfaction of the Wikipedia enforcers? Qexigator (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the legal situation: If you scanned the image yourself, it is your image of an out of copyright page, and you can explain this and enter it as your work on the WP Commons file data page (unless you do so the image will probably be deleted). If it is someone else's scan, they have copyright and you will lose the image. HGilbert (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good value for two cents. Qexigator (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't know who Thewikibeagles is but I have seen a name at metadata linked above, and found someone of that name via google, and the info. given about him. Was Heller a philosopher? Is Michael Frayn a comic writer? After working with such conundrums of identity and attributes, it is always a relief to turn to the works of Steiner for refreshment. If I knew how to cope with the image I would be glad to help. Let's hope it is not removed for a technicality. You have uploaded an image of a copy that you made of a copy in your possession, probably one of multiple copies reproducing an image, made by a person unkwown, of the original printed page, and the original printed page is certainly out of copyright. Any valid claim of copyright infringement seems improbale in the extreme. Qexigator (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+ Maybe it's the jacket not the title page?[24] Qexigator (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

disambig: Heller, J. Catch-22, while Erich is notable also for his essay on v.Kleist, and for a phrase such as (of Schiller) "theologically displaced persons" as well as so much else of his chosen genre. JW[25] could be a scent laid for Drag hunting: "the thrill of riding at speed in a natural environment". MF, yes[26], and then there's the folksong version[27]. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth happened to the title page image? It has vanished! Can anyone help?Thewikibeagles (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not considered a free use image based on the information you gave when you uploaded it. If you can scan an original title page yourself it would surely qualify...probably hard to find (maybe the RS Library has an original edition and would scan it for you?)
Copyright issues are very delicate, and Wikipedia tries very hard not to get on the wrong side of these. HGilbert (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Streamlining

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)[reply]

Avoid speculation?

@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 Copytalk 11:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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!!

Original research

The Philosophy of Freedom relies heavily upon original research based upon Steiner's own works. Reported at WP:FTN.

Could you please give the line numbers or at the very least examples or at best enumerate the cases of WP:FTN? Which exactly is are the fringe theories and which of Steiner's own works" does the article as it is rely one? Otherwise it is hard to proceed. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikibeagles (talk • contribs)
Hard to proceed? Each citation of a work by either Steiner or Wilson is original research. And that also applies to citing Rawls. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not following. I can't cite the work the article is about, because that is "original work"? Is that right? But that rules out the article and any article of the sort a priori, for example the page about Kant's _Critique of Pure_ reason. A lot of Kant is cited! (But how could it be otherwise??) By the way, there are no Wilson articles, books or other that are cited. Wilson is a translator who translated the subject-matter of the page. Thewikibeagles (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replied below. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While a certain amount of MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR is allowed, this article is nothing else than MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR.

Nothing else? How about say the first two paras:
The Philosophy of Freedom is the fundamental philosophical work of philosopher, Goethe scholar and esotericist Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925). It addresses the question of whether and in what sense human beings are free. Originally published in 1894 in German as Die Philosophie der Freiheit,[1][2] with a second edition published in 1918, the work has appeared under a number of English titles, including The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity (the title Steiner proposed for the English-language translation[3]), The Philosophy of Freedom, and Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path.
Part One of The Philosophy of Freedom examines the basis of freedom in human thinking, gives an account of the relationship between knowledge and perception, and explores the role and reliability of thinking in the formation of knowledge. In Part Two Steiner analyzes the conditions necessary for human beings to be free, and develops a moral philosophy that he labels as "ethical individualism".[4] The book's subtitle, Some results of introspective observation following the methods of natural science,[5] indicates the philosophical approach Steiner intends to take.
Para 1 seems not to be summary at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikibeagles (talk • contribs)
Which are the sources of those statements? Steiner's own book + a book by an Anthroposophist which fails WP:FRIND. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point of footnote 3 is to document the claim that Steiner floated an alternative title. Can you suggest an alternative source which is not by an anthroposophist? And can the anthroposophists not be trusted in such matters - e.g. dates of publication? Thewikibeagles (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The date of publication is trivial, and that may be WP:V by it. The fact that Steiner is a (presumably reputable) Goethe scholar isn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is it rather refutes the "nothing else" claim, doesn't it, and there are plenty of other examples of factual information to which the same point applies. Thewikibeagles (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated, MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR performed upon Steiner's book as a WP:PRIMARY source isn't always wrong, but it should not be exclusively an article of MOS:PLOTSOURCE WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is repetitive. Thewikibeagles (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Again, going para by para, could you explain how para 1 is a "musing" and paras 1 and 2 (examples of) "collections of musings"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikibeagles (talk • contribs)

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.

Here is an example of an embedded acronym that produces nonsense. "I am not here to righting great wrongs" is not English. Better to remove the embedded acronyms and write what you mean. It is fairer to the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikibeagles (talk • contribs)

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.

The same could be said of course of the article on Kant's First Critique. How is making the judgement? Well, the multiple authors one supposes. Who else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikibeagles (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

This merely a confusion. M. Wilson is the translator of a work (PoF) by Steiner, OK? "The source Wilson" is Steiner's book, the subject matter of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikibeagles (talk • contribs)
Your statement proves my claim that the source Wilson is in fact Steiner. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction you need is between a source and a reference. Referring to Wilson is referring to Steiner. But the source is not Wilson. C'mon!! Thewikibeagles (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you disagree. That was exactly my point: Wilson is in fact Steiner. So, the article is not citing research done by this Wilson, but Steiner's own book.
So the citations masquerading as "Wilson" are not citing anything originally written by Wilson, but simply Steiner's writing. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you don't mean that Wilson = Steiner. If not, what do you mean? Thewikibeagles (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Research!? HARDLY. Thewikibeagles (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the source masquerading as Wilson is in fact written by Steiner. I don't even know why the name Wilson was mentioned, since it is not his book. They should have plainly mentioned the author as Steiner, not Wilson. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are being too sensitive. What has happened is that various and different people have edited the page, and some have used "Steiner" and some have used "Wilson" to refer to PoF. I think it was plainly unwitting, but who has the strength to go through it all and fix it? The references are references, not sources.Thewikibeagles (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[28] makes clear that Wilson is merely the translator while Steiner is the author. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You got it. Thewikibeagles (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Where is this broad consensus given?
In the past, there was an WP:ARBCOM case about Anthroposophy and Waldorf schools. While the case has been meanwhile rescinded, sources written by Anthroposophists are usually deemed to be substandard works, which cannot fulfill the guideline WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Waldorf education is one thing, anthroposophy another, _The Philosophy of Freedom_ another. It was written before 1894. Thewikibeagles (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, but Steiner was only one person, and the general consensus at Wikipedia is that his works are not WP:RS (because it is so darn difficult to parse what he wrote, interpreting his works is best left to mainstream academics and debunkers of pseudoscience). If you doubt that, take it to WP:RSN, but I think I already know the answer. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the issue here is whether PoF is - what? - a reliable source? To what? It's a work of philosophy you know. It is a perfectly acceptable piece of philosophical work. I remember a Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy (at Cambridge, Wittgenstein's chair), shortly after Wittgenstein, remarking that _The Philosophy of Freedom_ was "a minor classic". What exactly do you think is unreliable about it? The slightly extreme individualist ethics maybe? Thewikibeagles (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Steiner's ethics, aka the Law of Thelema, is a valuable contribution to philosophy. While I reject his spiritual idealism from the book, I approve of his ethics.
Unfortunately, here at Wikipedia it never is about my personal opinion, but about what Wikipedians consensually consider as WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So isn't this a good opportunity for you to improve the page, though maybe without thelema and Crowley and other things not so "well received"? Thewikibeagles (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like our WP:RULES, you may freely publish your own opinions upon your own blog. But as long as we edit Wikipedia, we have to obey the WP:RULES even when we do not like it.
If citing Rawls is on the table, then citing Marco Pasi's book about Aleister Crowley is also on the table. You can't have one without another. Otherwise it's "rules for thee, but not for me". tgeorgescu (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So seriously tgeorgescu, with your skills and academic background, why not take on the ethics portion of the page and make it work? Maybe it's more than you want to do, but I personally agree with you about the deficiencies of the page is it is today, and with your comments about what these are. Thewikibeagles (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because by and large there are no WP:RS about it. People who study Western esotericism are more inclined to study his antisemitism, his links with Ordo Templi Orientis, and his occult ramblings, rather than his philosophical works. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a page devoted to the book, not to its author. Your main complaint seems to be that there is very little secondary literature, outside the anthroposophical sources. True. OK? But is this enough to exclude the book from having a wikipedia page? It's a good work of philosophy, and it deserves better - a lot better - than it has received in philosophy. But that may be said to have been self-inflicted. Thewikibeagles (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking for my opinion, and my opinion is that my opinion does not matter. WP:RULES such as WP:RS and WP:VER matter. Seriously, if you think this is a website for ventilating my opinions or your opinions, you need to take a pause and rethink your whole approach to editing Wikipedia. The difference from a bureaucracy is that editing Wikipedia isn't hierarchically organized, but for the rest we think like bureaucrats and act like bureaucrats, i.e. according to the rules. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: this is a page devoted to one book, a book good enough to receive a review in _the Philosophical Review_, one of the premier US philosophy journals, by a distinguished philosopher of the time. It is about the book and its argument, in my view, not about the author. Thewikibeagles (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand what I meant: even if I privately agree with you, my opinion is irrelevant, WP:RULES are relevant. My Wikipedia edits do not necessarily reflect my own opinions. E.g. when translating for Romanian Wikipedia I have also translated POVs which I believe are mistaken. Like the Jesus Seminar said this, N.T. Wright said that, while I agree with neither. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We agree about all that. But why not a page, more than a stub, giving an account of PoF? Why not the Jesus Seminar said this, Steiner said that, where "that" is a piece of philosophy? The book differs from Steiner's later lectures and books in being strictly philosophical (except perhaps for the 1918 additions). If the Critique of Pure Reason gets a page, why not PoF, a perfectly respectable work of the period? 2601:18B:8180:C7E0:8810:3DA7:3D0:3DE3 (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the end it is not my own decision. I only reported some problems, wikipedically speaking, and their solution is a collective decision. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are shifting your ground. Thewikibeagles (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problems are clear: violations of years-old wikipedic consensus. You might be amazed that it was the creator of this article himself who told me about such consensus.
I did not invent such consensus, but I'm thinking coherently what it entails, instead of "rules for thee, but not for me." The reason for the consensus was cogently explained to me at [29]. But of course, it only applies to my edits, not to his edits. Kindergarten morality.
Who decided that when the pro-Steiner faction cites Rudolf Steiner, it isn't controversial, but when I call it "Law of Thelema" it is highly controversial? Since both are WP:OR.
Even more clearly expressed at [30].

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)

So, this article violates the very same standards which the creator of this article preached unto other Wikipedians. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, sure. But the point is that PoF was written in 1894, before Steiner was a theosophist, an anthroposophist, or anything else except a struggling academic. He writes a good philosophy book, corresponds with von Hartmann, and so on. The later occult material is not given as a source, and the only sources given in PoF itself are other philosophers, e.g. Spinoza. Why can't wikipedia give an objective report on all that, consistent with the consensus? Thewikibeagles (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any other arguments besides special pleading and double standard? Steiner never passed WP:N as an academic. I have WP:RS to that extent, quoted inside the article Rudolf Steiner.
If he published his work in the 18th century, he would have been hailed as a great luminary, next to Kant and Hegel. In the 20th century it was considered antiquated. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That, as people say, is your opinion. The test is how good the philosophy is. I feel competent to judge this, as did Tim Sprigge, R.B. Braithwaite, and others. I wonder whether you are blinded by your dislike of anthroposophy (to which as you say you are "entitled" [though whence the entitlement?]) from seeing that PoF is entitled to a wikipedia page on its merit. I also think you should look at the number of antiquted works that have wikipedia pages, such as Leibniz's Theodicy, Aquinas' Summma, and Locke's Essay. Nobody would argue like that today. Should their pages be speedily deleted? Thewikibeagles (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are classic books, not born antiquated. And if I like or dislike Anthroposophy it does not concern Wikipedia. That Anthroposophy is WP:FRINGE does concern Wikipedia.
And if you want to insist that I'm biased: I am definitely, absolutely biased for WP:BESTSOURCES.
The mistake is thinking that Summa would have been considered a milestone of WP:SCHOLARSHIP if it were written in the 21st century. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is it doing on Wikipedia, then? Thewikibeagles (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Summa is very important for historical reasons. The point is: German Idealism was the thing in the 18th and the 19th century, in the 20th century it was very much out of fashion. Not irrelevant, but then its relevance was mostly historical (history of philosophy). tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's more to the Summa than its historical impact. Besides, it had the impact because of what it is. And there is also plenty of 20c idealism, for example Wittgenstein's linguistic idealism, Nelson Goodman's Structure of Appearance, and Carnap's _Aufbau_. Thewikibeagles (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, should the existence of wikipedia pages depend on what is in fashion or out of fashion? See Paul Guyer's entry on idealism in the Stanford Encyclopedia. Thewikibeagles (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What happens when we get less than one word per line??? Thewikibeagles (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or use long words such as "automatically" Thewikibeagles (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
. Thewikibeagles (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Arbitrary break

How do you mean, "Steiner did not write"? And is PoF an " anthroposophic" work? How could it be? Steiner was not even a theosophist in 1894, let alone an "anthroposophist" since anthroposophy did not exist until c. 1912. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikibeagles (talk • contribs)
Steiner's "academic" reputation is that of a clairvoyant who peddled occult claptrap. Fails the guideline WP:RS.
E.g. Shaye J. D. Cohen has a named chair at Harvard University. That's how we know that his works count as WP:RS. Steiner never was a professor, or anything remotely like that. His Goethe scholarship was a low-paid, low-esteem job which nobody else wanted. The main problem of his employer was finding someone qualified to do the job, since most credible scholars were not willing to edit Goethe's scientific works. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? Thewikibeagles (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to https://brill.com/edcollbook/title/13064 , Rudolf Steiner himself complained of having such low-paid job. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need the primary source not a derivative secondary source, please. Thewikibeagles (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not willing to oblige: you do not make the WP:RULES. WP:OR of WP:PRIMARY sources is not the way to "prove" historical facts inside Wikipedia. Instead we trust a full professor from a reputable Dutch university, contributing to an encyclopedia edited by another full professor from a reputable Dutch university. Both are experts in Western esotericism.
Leijenhorst, Cees (2006). "Steiner, Rudolf, * 25.2.1861 Kraljevec (Croatia), † 30.3.1925 Dornach (Switzerland)". In Hanegraaff, Wouter J. (ed.). Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism. Leiden / Boston: Brill. p. 1086. 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.
For all Wikipedic purposes, WP:V has been satisfied. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an incitement to commit an appeal to authority. Are only the views of full professors to be accepted, but not associates? A dangerous argument!Thewikibeagles (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have quoted myself http://ansgarmartins.de/ , who is not a full professor. But a full professor published by The Royal Publishing House Brill passes WP:RS with flying colors, which might not always be the case for associate professors. Otherwise, see WP:VERECUNDIAM. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bully for you. Thewikibeagles (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the comment. We have standards, you know. Having high standards is not bullying. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an English idiom. You can google it, I think. Thewikibeagles (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idiom has nothing to do with bullying. Sorry. Thewikibeagles (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

How and where to source

I have looked at three many other articles for comparison of sourcing for content descriptions:

Plus

  • Pride and Prejudice. Not a philosophical work, but similarly, the entire, extensive plot description is unsourced or solely sourced to the original text.

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)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. This is not a deletion discussion (that was settled in the AfD discussion). It is a sourcing discussion. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you want to read the prevailing views of the deletion debate: they suggested transforming this article to a stub. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The final conclusion reads, "The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject itself is notable. Cleanup and/or stubification can be handled at the article itself as warranted." That's where a discussion here comes into play. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking for relevant guidelines. For fiction, there is WP:PLOTSOURCE, which clearly supports summary's not having to be sourced outside of the work, but for non-fiction works, I see no comparable guideline that offers one direction or the other. But the general standard for philosophical work seems to be to source to the actual text. I've added other examples to the list above; in fact, I can find no philosophical work whose contents are sourced anywhere else but the text, and even to that generally only for direct quotes. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated, I'm okay with WP:PLOTSOURCE, but the article should not be exclusively WP:PLOTSOURCE.
It is a shame that the first WP:FRIND source has been introduced only in 2023. That is, the article waited more than 17 years for a WP:FRIND source. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The key to Steinerian free will

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)[reply]

Rawls and Pasi

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)[reply]

I favor removing Rawls, but I wanted to tag and give it a few days in case someone can provide a supporting citation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is clear wp:synth. If this work is intuitionist then it shouldn't be hard to find a wp:rs saying so rather than citing just the definition of intuitionism in Rawls—blindlynx 14:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, agreed. Argument is good. Thewikibeagles (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the Rawls ref. Thewikibeagles (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it in spite of the fact that I think the PoS argument has as a consequence intuitionism in the sense that there is no supreme moral principle, such as Kant's or Bentham's. That I now see would take a little argument. Thewikibeagles (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PoS?—blindlynx 21:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RSN

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Books by Anthroposophists are not RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a particular note, since this seems clear-cut - Temple Lodge is clearly not a reputable publisher. Anything published solely by them should be removed on sight and not cited at all, even with attribution; if it is noteworthy there will be secondary sources we can use. --Aquillion (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:The_Philosophy_of_Freedom"