In Steiner’s Lectures on Human and Cosmic Thought, which Tom has correlated to PoF, stands the term anthropomorphism.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about anthropomorphism, as Steiner points out in PoF Chapter 1 paragraph 15: Nothing is gained by seeking analogies in the animal kingdom to clarify a concept of freedom that applies to the actions of human beings.
TV nature programs are often full of such analogies in relation to animal behaviour, which are interpreted in terms of human behaviour. This adds considerable entertainment value. Some of this, which does not directly relate to human freedom, may possibly be scientifically valid, but such anthropomorphic analogies are not what Steiner means when he says: [Anthropomorphism] occurs only in a single case, when a person, taking all the world-pictures to some extent, restricts himself only to what he can experience on or around or in himself. This could well be considered to be an aspect of ethical individualism.
Frankly, I can do without all these isms, but it seems to me that we need to clarify this highly significant soul tone with an unambiguous term to describe what Steiner really means in H&CT. The self-imposed limitation into the view and experience of the individual human observer has been developed as Goethean Science, so I suggest that the term Goetheanism effectively covers this soul tone as defined by Steiner. It is not a descriptive term, like the others, but it is relatively unambiguous.
What do others think?
Goethe inappropriate
I think Steiner began where Goethe left off so don't think he goes much beyong chapter 2 of POF. Goethe studied leaves and the natural world. He had no interest in the study of thinking. I had a quote where he dismissed it. POF goes beyond leaf study to pure thinking which is thinking at a different level than contemplating plants. H&CT terms are about a study of thinking so I think using Goethe would be inappropriate.
Maybe...
Maybe you are right, Tom, but Goethe did not do Goetheanism.The goetheanists are those who followed him and have developed a whole branch of science that is based on Goethe's phenomenological approach.
What else can be coined for this term?
Goetheanism and Anthropomorhpism
Hi John,
Initially I had doubts about what you're suggesting but after reading the relevant passage from Human and Cosmic Thought I do agree you have a point.
Anthropomorphism is probably not a good word for it in English - it trivialises it to my mind as it has connotations of egocentric or humanocentric behaviour and thought (e.g. people writing stories about animals wearing clothes and talking to each other).
I have a sense of the experience being "it is what it is" and "I am that I am" combined - almost a zen feeling, in a sense there is nothing beyond this. Phenomenalism touches part of it but from the description all of the moods etc. touch on and circle round it. Also the passage Steiner sometimes referred to in Dante's Divine Comedy where the entirety of the godhead is perceived in human form:
O eternal light, existing in yourself alone,
Alone knowing yourself; and who, known to yourself
And knowing, love and smile upon yourself!
That circle which, conceived in this manner,
Appeared in you as a reflected light,
When my eyes examined it rather more,
Within itself, and in its own colour,
Seemed to be painted with our effigy;
And so absorbed my attention altogether...
Regards,
Tim
Thanks Tim
At the end of the day, this term is probably just another definition of anthroposophy. Anthroposophism? Oh, dear!
Anthroposopophosophy
Ah yes... not sure how that word rolls off the tongue in German but just try saying just about any phrase containing the word "anthroposophical" three times over quickly ;-)
Anyway sometimes the ugliest, clumsiest words can point to the most sublime conceptions I guess... the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone of a new creation and so on.
Anthropo-morphism is not animal-morphism
Ralph
One thing is giving a human form to an animal, which is anthropomorphism as considered in H&CT in consideration of the world-outlooks. This regards the philosophy about the world.
Another thing is giving the animal form to a human(the opposite), which is what Steiner debates upon in many of his writings. He highlights this as common misleading analogy for explaining human after having observed the animal. This regards philosophy about man as treated in the POF.
I hope this clarify...maybe I am missing something as well!!
Regards
Andrea
Aiming at an enormous target
I would not claim to fully understand what Steiner means. What you mention as another thing, Andrea, is clear enough. Giving a human form to an animal is not quite how I would describe the whole of what Steiner means, but is a part.
There are many aspects of the human being that can be seen in animals as a kind of specialisation. Then there is also the rest of the phenomena of the natural world. Yet this is only one aspect of what Steiner describes:
Anthropomorphism is the world-outlook nearest to the harmony that can sound forth from Theism, Intuitionism and Naturalism...
The aspects of Theism and Intuitionism are also part of the soul tone that is intended. These other 2 tones are completely omitted in the general understanding of the term anthropomorphism.
Tom has posted WORD documents of the relevant parts of H&CT here.
Particular Implications and the Big picture
This is an interesting topic, and I hope putting clarity (or confusion) on it will help me understand H&CT, and of course POF. I don't follow much your thought conclusions, but you have stimulated me anyway.
As I mentioned, POF is philosophying about man throgh various inherent modalities(word-outlooks) of philosophying about the world.
When one wants to explain man, one is in certain way forced to place man in the world one has experienced so far through the modalities listed in H&CT. The more of these modalities you are helding the more you come closer the expression of truth.
So one thing are the starting points, or world-outlooks(more personal), and one another thing are the tools used for investigation which often include the natural-scientifc approach(more imposed by objective purpose).
The latter consists in the analogy between man and the animal (the sentence on POF) , of trying to apply the laws of the animal or of the inorganic to gain conclusions about man, when he should be investigated ALSO and mainly with laws regarding man and man alone.
Of course there can be more profound conclusions than these I am putting forward with my understanding. But what I feel in Steiner approach is the purpose of simplifying things, not of complicate them, and as far as concern my experience I don't intend to read through the lines for extra meaning I may be overseeing. Everybody should take from Steiner writings what one needs to gain the big picture, before delving in particular implications.
Post new comment