The biggest translation question of chapter 3 may be paragraph 4, the fundamental polarity: Observation and thought are the two points of departure for all intellectual striving of the human being, to the degree we are conscious of such striving or Observation and thinking are the two points of departure.......
He explains what he means in paragraph 5 and 6. I have hi-lited parts that support "thought". Keep in mind that the word thinking can replace thought in all the paragraphs below.
[5] Whatever principle we choose to advance, we must either prove that we have observed it somewhere, or we must express it in the form of clear reasoning that can be re-thought by any other thinker.
thinking or thought both work in this part:
When philosophers set out to discuss their fundamental principles, they must express them in conceptual form and so use thought. They indirectly admit with this fact that their work requires thought. We leave open here the question whether thought or something else is the chief factor in the development of the world. But it is clear from the start that philosophers can gain no knowledge of world development without thought. Thought may play a secondary role in the occurrance of world phenomena, but it certainly plays a leading role in the formation of a view about them.
This part supports the observation/thought usage because the observation and thought exist separately:
[6] As for observation, we need it due to the way we are organized. Our thought about a horse and the object "horse" are two things that exist separately for us. The object is accessible to us only by means of observation. As little as we can construct a concept of a horse by merely staring at it, just as little can we produce a corresponding object with mere thought.
I think thinking is more than one half of a polarity.
4-2 Thinking is beyond subject and object. It forms these two concepts just as it does all others.
Observation can mean the result of observing
Observation can mean the act of observing or the result of observing. Thinking can mean the act of thinking or the results of thinking.
In paragraph 4 observation and thinking, Hoernle leans toward the object (result of observation) and the thought (result of thinking) as being the fundamental polarity --two things that exist. The other translators imply that the act of observation and the act of thinking is the fundamental polarity --two processes.
The preceding Chapter 2 refers to a fundamental polarity of the observed world and our explanation of it, objects and our thoughts about it.
Nowhere are we satisfied with what nature spreads out before our senses. We search everywhere for what we call the explanation of the facts.
[2] We seek something more in things that exceeds what is immediately given to us. This addition we seek splits our whole being into two parts; we become conscious of contrasting (others use polarity here) with the world. We confront the world as independent beings. The universe appears to us as two contrasting sides: Self and World.
Chapter 4 Thinking as starting point
Chaper 2, 3, and 4 need to be reconciled in regards to fundamental polarity and starting point.
4-0 I emphasize here the fact that thinking is my starting point, and not concepts and ideas which must first be attained by means of thinking. Concepts and ideas already assume thinking as a precondition. Therefore, what I have said about the nature of thinking, --that it rests within itself and is determined by nothing-- cannot simply be transferred to concepts. (I make special mention of this, because this is where I differ with Hegel. Hegel puts the concept as first and original.)
I note this comment in
I note this comment in relation to the Chapter 3 title thread where I just posted some suggestions of conceptual understanding.
In our time we need to take on board the realm of qualia - a post Steiner notion - as well as concepts. The definition of a concept has shifted since Steiner's days, and also since many dictionaries were written. The divide of percept and concept is also present between sensation and qualia. Conceiving as a creative act still applies...
-------------------------- Informative note -----------------------------------
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia where you will find much more...
"Qualia" (pronounced /ˈkwɑːliə/ or pronounced /ˈkweɪliə/), singular "quale" (pronounced /ˈkwɑːleɪ/, roughly KWAH-leh), from a Latin word meaning for "what sort" or "what kind," is a term used in philosophy to describe the subjective quality of conscious experience. Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, or the redness of an evening sky. Daniel Dennett writes that qualia is "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us."[1]
The importance of qualia in philosophy of mind comes largely from the fact that they are often seen as posing a fundamental problem for materialist explanations of the mind-body problem. Much of the debate over their existence hinges on the definition of the term that is used, as various philosophers emphasize or deny the existence of certain properties. Believers in qualia are known as qualophiles; non-believers as qualophobes.[2]
Qualia seems a broad
Qualia seems a broad definition including physical sensations. Sounds like they divide the pie up differently than Steiner's system. Steiner describes the concept in the opening of chapter 4. Steiner's definition also deepens, becomes a purer form, as he develops it.
Paradise Apple Pie
Despite the trouble over definitions, there are no 'physical sensations' unless you are a materialist, so we have to read through the modern mind-matter debate while moving our lips silently. However I think that you will find that Chapter 2 of PoF helps distinguish where the crust of the modern pie belongs...
Note that qualia are defined as being outside the scope of language. Isn't this similar to Steiner's assertion that a concept cannot be captured in words? Perhaps you will remember what he really wrote.
Let's not get distracted. The main thing is that the mind-body mind-matter debates remain unsettled and unsettling in the world among folk who are struggling to grasp reality through thinking.
That there are no physical
That there are no physical sensations is just one of the many views. We are materialists along with all the other views according to what section we are working on. I would bet that you could identify a specific section within POF that presented the Qualia view as I have been able to do such with other views I look for.
Competition?
Sounds like a good idea for a competition.
This month: [insert paragraph by a person that more than 3 folk have heard of] Which worldview does this represent? How does this view appear to [insert a random worldview]? The best paragraph of not more than 150 words wins infinite kudos. A different prize would attract materialists obviously. Admin's decision is final.
Could this be the first spin-off from our collaborative work?
I think POF becomes a
I think POF becomes a science of philosophy and psychology by applying world-outlooks, as described in POF, to life. This is the work I have wanted to do but I found out that nobody had read POF closely enogh to work at that level. It is level 2 of POF.
the starting point
I have been studying --Denken-- translated as thought or thinking and if a contradiction appears between chapter 3 (thought is my starting point) and chapter 4 (thinking is my starting point).
I have concluded that they should both state thought is the starting point. The study of current POF translations (saying thinking is the starting point) had incorrectly turned me into a Hegelian, thinking the concept was a primal element. Steiner explains that the concept is slowly built up from childhood and added to observation. The concept is built up, being preceded by thoughts.
4-0 I emphasize here the fact that thought is my starting point Ausgangspunkt, and not concepts and ideas which must first be attained by means of thought. Concepts and ideas already assume thought as a precondition. Therefore, what I have said about the nature of thought, ---that it rests within itself and is determined by nothing--- cannot simply be transferred to concepts. (I make special mention of this, because this is where I differ with Hegel. Hegel puts the concept as first and original.)
[2] Concepts cannot be attained from observation. This can already be seen from the fact that children only slowly and gradually form concepts for the objects that surround them. Concepts are which must first be attained by means of added to observation.
linking from Chapter 2
Continuing Tom’s observations about thinking and thought above, I noticed the following:
[Chapter 2: paragraph 5] Materialism can never provide a satisfactory explanation of the world. This is because every attempt to explain the world must begin by forming thoughts about its phenomena.
The next extract concerns the appearance of the German word Weltauffassung. How we translate this word is influenced by its appearance in the title of the Chapter 3. This seems to me another part of the issue with thought and thinking.
[Chapter 2: paragraph 4] We meet all that I have outlined here as the relationship between I and the world in the historical phenomena of the conflict between the [einheitlichen Weltauffassung] one-world/single world view/interpretation of Monism, and the [Zweiweltentheorie] two-world theory of Dualism.
Cassell’s German Dictionary gives a possible reading of auffassung, when applied to phenoma, as is the instance in the text, of interpretation. I suggest that this is a useful candidate to preserve Steiner’s distinction of auffassung and theorie. Interpretation is entirely an act of thinking or thought. I am very wary of the word theory because of its similarity to hypothesis, mentioned earlier in Chapter 1. I read this placement of theory in the text as an early showing that Steiner views Dualism as lacking the potential of Monism that he brings out later in PoF. My experience with plural English concepts of theory may possibly be misleading or untypical.
There is some danger in
There is some danger in working with very subtle distinctions where we may miss the broader meaning and confuse the reader. We would have to determine its value.
Monism: world conception/interpretation
Dualism: world theory
I read this placement of theory in the text as an early showing that Steiner views Dualism as lacking the potential of Monism that he brings out later in PoF.
He clearly states that both of these views don't work in chp 2 so I don't think he is hinting anything but the German could be a clue for those who already know how the story ends. Neither of these two points of view can satisfy us, because they do not do justice to the facts.
I have been leaning back to the basics with the title of chapter 2 The Basic Urge For Science, rather than trying to be too clever with The Basic Urge For Theory which will likely create confusion.
physical world and thought
Materialism can never provide a satisfactory explanation of the world. This is because every attempt to explain the world must begin by forming thoughts about its phenomena.
The next sentences are: So Materialism takes its start with the thought of Matter or physical processes. But in doing so, it is already dealing with two different sets of facts: the physical world and the thoughts about it.
Rather than observation and thought, Materialism starts from the physical world and thought.
Observer and perception
Thank you for highlighting this Tom. [This was a response to Tom's first 2 posts at the top of this thread -- sorry to have messed up the world order of things here.]
We need to clarify our route through Chapter 2 towards Chapter 3.
Can we use the word perceived instead of observed? The contrast of mental processes and perception seems relatively clear at first glance.
Is this the distinction that Steiner intends to make? I am not convinced - at this moment - that the mirror of object and thought is the real distinction as that puts the sensory process in the middle as the 'bridge'.
I am aware that perception can be distorted when the process of closure intervenes. Perception likes to give us a clear message and will substitute an old known for a new unknown. For this reason unfamiliar or briefly glimpsed phenomena are tough to perceive clearly the first time. Perception is not 'clean'.
Still thinking...
I looked at perception but
I looked at perception but the German Beobachtung is clearly observation but I should look at it again. If you select "reply" when posting your posts will thread correctly.
Truth and Science
I read IV The Starting Points Of The Theory Of Knowledge from Truth and Science and for me it confirmed the correctness of: Observation and thought are the two points of departure for all intellectual striving of the human being......
He explains that the starting point is the Given before any cognitive activity begins. But this Given, to begin with, contains everything from sensations, feelings, etc. plus concepts and ideas. But these concepts and ideas are different from the other Givens in that they are a product of our activity. So these concepts and ideas are a field within the Given where we can get a foothold. So thought is the starting point for understanding the world.
Post new comment