Translation Project: Revise the original 1916 Hoernle English translation for better clarity and to make the text and style more contemporary while maintaining accuracy. This is the only English translation of The Philosophy of Freedom Rudolf Steiner personally authorized and was aware of. The other translations were done after his passing.
Some Thoughts
The Philosophy of Freedom is the "result of introspective observation following the methods of natural science."
Chapter 3 "Whatever principle we wish to advance, we must either prove that we have observed it somewhere, or we must express it in the form of a clear thought that can be re-thought by others."
- descriptions of observations
- clear thought
"It is written for the express purpose of disciplining thinking without any mention of theosophy."
- the original Hoernle translation does not use the theosophy terms added later by others
"In 1894 I made the attempt with my Philosophy of Freedom to provide just such a philosophic basis on which to approach spiritual science. It presents the wide range of human standpoints, often masquerading under such strange philosophical names, in a way that leaves the reader free of attachment to any particular approach and able to let the various concepts speak for themselves, as though each were a photograph of one and the same object taken from many different angles."
- Each chapter has an opening topic heading (0), followed by topic headings (1-12). I would like the opening topic heading indicate the whole chapter topic and have the following 12 headings indicate a different view of a single main topic. So in chapter 1 the opening topic heading is Question of Freedom followed by 12 views of freedom.
"Today I would like to describe the path into the spiritual world that conforms to the needs of Western civilization and is particularly suited to anyone immersed in the scientific life of the West.
In my book, Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and Its Attainment, I have described an entirely safe path leading to the supersensible, but I describe it in such a way that it applies for everybody, above all for those who have not devoted their lives to science. Today I shall describe a path into the supersensible that is much more for the scientist. All my experience has taught me that for such a scientist a kind of precondition for this cognitional striving is to take up what is presented in my book, Philosophy of Freedom. I will explain what I mean by this. This book, Philosophy of Freedom, was not written with the same intent as most books written today. Nowadays books are written simply in order to inform the reader of the book's subject matter, so that the reader learns the book's contents in accordance with his education, his scientific training, or the special knowledge he already possesses. This was not my primary Intention in writing Philosophy of Freedom, and thus it will not be popular with those who read books only to acquire Information. The purpose of the book is to make the reader directly engage his thinking activity an every page."
- conforms to the needs of Western civilization
- suited to anyone immersed in the scientific life of the West
- make the reader directly engage his thinking activity an every page
100 Years (and PoF site search engine)
This is good basis, Tom.
In addition, and I do not intend it to sound defensive in relation to our endeavours, I suggest that you reference the comment of Steiner's in this post where he says that PoF could be rewritten after 100 years.
---------------------------------------------------
(off topic observation)
I struggled find your recent post to this effect because the search engine on this site stopped indexing after 2007 according to the results I obtain from it. Fortunately I could search the emails from the forum in Outlook.
Philosophy of Freedom - The Original
We won't know until we have closely examined all the 1918 revisions Steiner make to the Philosophy of Freedom, but we could end up restoring the original version written when Steiner was focused on modern science before he went the route of theosophy and its language. His 1918 changes to the text bring in theosophy which isn't helpful for today's thinker. This was compounded by later theosophist translators.
He made some major revisions to chapter 9 that bring in some confusion. But we will have to see. We could always add the 1918 revisions to the back of the book as footnotes. Steiner maintained the original text was fine except he wanted to rephrase parts to make it clearer (for theosophists). So a case could be made that the original text would be better for non-theosophists.
Today, the original version is only available if you find a very rare old copy.
An example would help
Tom, could you post an example to illustrate how one of the 1918 revisions makes for such confusion? I do not really understand why an author's revisions should be stripped out without very good cause, such as becoming mentally unstable at the time of revision.
You have repeatedly asserted that Steiner slanted the1918 revisions towards theosophists. Did he really say what you seem to quote above about theosophists?
I am assuming that you mean by theosophists, folk with a spiritual or mystical inclination. It certainly cannot be members of the Theosophical Society, which was well out of the picture by 1918. An example would demonstrate exactly what you mean with this.
Thanks.
book for science minded
The 1918 revisions made to chapter 2 are on the top of the chapter 2 translation page and the original text appears in the new chapter 2 translation below that.
I prefer to speak normal language rather than anthroposophy talk. According to dictionaries the anthroposophical movement is considered a branch of theosophy and is often referred to as theosophy. An anthroposophist will be able to elaborate great differences but to a general view these differences are subtle like the ones between the 10,000 different sects of Christanity. They are just all called Christians.
Anthroposophy uses the language of theosophy which is mainly the issue here. Nobody speaks theosophy anymore. So far the 1918 revisions appear to be adding the language of theosophy to the original text and rewording the text to fit the theosophy belief system. Hoernle and the original POF restricts the use of theosophy terms like "spirit" within a range that I think would be accepted today.
We will have to examine the other revisions (I know chapter 9 has some rewriting) as we come to them. I haven't found any major revisions by Steiner outside of chapter 2 and 9 yet.
The Philosophy of Freedom was intended for the scientific community, not the spiritualist community. The spiritualists already have all the Steiner books and lectures they could ever need.
We should ask how this book reads to an engineer or computer scientist today, who are the real thinkers of our age, not how it reads to an anthroposophist, theosophist, or spiritualist, seeking vague mysticism or the artists seeking feeling, or even the philosopher seeking intellectual speculation.
the 1918 additions are
the 1918 additions are mostly directed towards von Hartmann, who annotated the copy of POF that Steiner gave him, and sent it back. In the 1918 Preface Steiner also mentions several passages he rewrote because he felt he was not expressing himself clearly enough. I dont see any references to rewriting it for "Theosophists".
Mind/Matter to Spirit/Matter
I posted the revisions in the new translation of chapter 2. Read them and decide for yourself whether they seem theosophical. He switches the discussion from Mind/Matter to Spirit/Matter.
Which debate, Mind/Matter or Spirit/Matter, is more relevant to today's culture and conversation?
The 1918 additions add so
The 1918 additions add so much clairity and common sense. He actually steers them far far away from his more abstract anthropsophical talk. In fact the 1918 additons contain some of the most clear language he had- at that time- developed regarding epistemology.
Don't confuse additions with revisions
I love the 1918 additions. Just to prevent any misunderstanding, I have been referring to removing the 1918 revisions to the text found in chapter 2 & 9 and placing them as footnotes in the back of the book or at the end of the chapter.
I think readers would also like to see what was removed from the original text by Steiner, which is interesting.
Rough diamond
Ok, Tom - I am not going to push any further into this.
To not notice that Steiner expunged all theosophical jargon from all his books and to suggest that a word such as spirit is theosophical appears slightly strange. But if dictionaries and the like are to be arbiters of general knowledge then eurythmy does'nt exist.
'Nuff said. Let's get back to work.
John, no limits, just another perspective
Basing the new translation on Hoernle doesn't impose any limits to translation possibilities. The book describes experience so the most important thing is always that these descriptions are clear. But it will help in providing a foundation to confirm or update.
Understood
I understand you here Tom.
I meant no disrespect to previous translators in the note I posted about the first paragraph of Chapter 1. There is an objective need to give both new and returning readers the experience that they have never read the book before. This power lives in the text that lives silently behind the language, which is the true text.
Getting more into the German text I realise that every sentence is structured in such a way that the reader has to blaze her/his own trail through to the meaning. We are not reproducing this in the English text, but we are equally demanding because we are letting the language draw the reader into what is not understood by merely scanning the words. It is a new level of the craft of writing for me, and I sense that the language has a mighty power of its own. The experience of letting the English language speak its own truth of the path of PoF is utterly new to me. I hope and trust that we will sustain the whole distance together.
It is late and this may not make sense in the morning. Just to say that I woke up to what we are doing in a new way today.
Anthroposophical Society group-think
After reading the Hoernle translations of POF and Truth and Science compared to the other translators who were members of the Anthroposophical Society the bias becomes obvious. The society English translators are biased according to the group-think of their group (cult?) with its emphasis on Steiner's later work in theosophy. This group think is proven by simple observation of a society member who will identify themselves by speaking the society talking points. If these talking points were from POF I would likely join the cult myself, but they often oppose the ideals of freedom in POF.
Is there any way for us to know if R. F. Alfred Hoernle ever was a society member? My online research shows no evidence of this. Do we have access to Society membership roles back in 1916? The history of the Society seems to indicate 1916 was before the fixed thinking of todays "Steinerism" developed. Poppelbaum didn't start "correcting" POF to conform to Steinerism until 1932 so I doubt if Steinerism existed in 1916. Steinerism probably can't develop until Steiner dies in 1925.
December 28, 1912. The Anthroposophical Society is founded in Cologne, Germany, with about 3,000 members. The members of its Executive Council are: Marie von Sivers, Michael Bauer and Carl Unger. Rudolf Steiner does not take any official position but acts as an advisor and lecturer. Separation from the Theosophical Society.
1923/1924 Rudolf Steiner founds the General Anthroposophical Society during the Christmas conference December 24, 1923 to January 1, 1924. He asks Albert Steffen, Marie Steiner, Ita Wegman, Elisabeth Vreede and Guenther Wachsmuth to serve on the initiative-oriented Executive Council and takes on the role of chairman himself.
Post new comment