This is the first disturbing 1918 revision I have found in POF. In the last paragraph in the book (chapter 14) he says that moral activity arises when the community accepts the ethics from others: "and their acceptance in human communities."
Is this to justify gurus bestowing their morality upon the rest of the ignorant community incapable of their own free morality? This contradicts the whole book in terms of emphasis. While it is true there are undeveloped people who need the guidance from others, but is this revision the result of the later Steiner haven taken on the Guru role in contradiction to his free individualist philosophy? (not to say he didn't need to become a Guru for the weak minded but this is an inappropriate addition if you view the book as carrying a philosophical artistic theme of free individuality.)
1894 POF, Hoernle translation
POF Chapter 14 [8] In respect of that part of his nature for which man is not able to win this freedom for himself, he forms a member within the organism of nature and of spirit. He lives, in this respect, by the imitation of others, or in obedience to their command. But ethical value belongs only to that part of his conduct which springs from his intuitions. This is his contribution to the already existing total of moral ideas. In such ethical intuitions all moral activity of men has its root. To put this differently: the moral life of humanity is the sum-total of the products of the moral imagination of free human individuals. This is Monism's confession of faith. Monism looks upon the history of the moral life, not as the education of the human race by a transcendent God, but as the gradual living out in practice of all concepts and ideas which spring from the moral imagination.
1918 revised POF, Lipson translation
[8] Our remaining part, where we have yet to win such freedom, still constitutes an element within the total organism of nature and mind. In this regard, we live as we see others live or as they command. Only the part of our action that springs from our intuitions has moral value in the true sense. And what we have in the way of moral instincts through inheritance of social instincts becomes something ethical through our taking it up into our intuitions. All the moral activity of humanity arises from individual ethical intuitions and their acceptance in human communities. We could also say that the ethical life of humanity is the sum total of what free human individuals have produced through their moral imagination. This is the conclusion reached by monism.
Google translate has a new
Google translate has a new feature where they give you a translation first, then you can place the pointer on a word it gives you alternative translations.
1918 revision
Tom,
I suspect you may be misreading Steiner, but that is a problem he has in spades for all of us given how much he has written. It is also possible translations problems are involved. What I suspect he was trying to point out was that an ethical individualist, in acting out of his intutions, models that behavior for the community. I suspect this idea of "modeling" was not in his vocabulary or in German, so he ends up with a clumsy form of expression: "and their acceptance in human communites." I also think he gives a kind of reverse image of this process of "social example" with the preceeding sentence: "And what we have in the way of moral instincts through inheritance of social instincts becomes something ethical through our taking it up into our intuitions"
This also seems to be a way in which he was trying to tie his so-called social observation about a healthy community life into PoF:
“A healthy social life is found only, when in the mirror of each soul the whole community finds its reflection, and when in the whole community the virtue of each one is living”
Perhaps the problem was how to link ethical individualism to community life, and he tried to do it with the revision, but it turns out not to be very percise or exact. Certainlly in 1918 he was up to his eyeballs in the social question in other venues, and perhaps here he just threw out something seeking a link, and botched it. Wouldn't be the first time he missed something.
joel
But versions are true. My
Both versions are true. My issue was that it was like an artist going back to a painting completed 25 years ago and slapping on some paint out of a totally opposite mood than the original. This is a problem with all his 1918 revisions. They damage the original art without adding anything important. The original POF is a powerful and inspiring expression of the pure ideal of freedom without compromise. Example:
you translated?
you translated?
This post is pointing out
This post is pointing out that the original German POF was revised by Steiner in 1918 in this section. The translations used to compare the change in English is by Houernle and Lipson.
Steiner's revisions aren't really incorrect in any way, but they do indicate a shift in emphasis, as he was trying to make POF more acceptable to theosophists with the revisions. But was moving the book away from everybody else.
Ed U. replies to Tom
Tom,
I see those additions as fleshing out what Steiner meant in the first place.
You are reading this in a way I would question:
"All the moral activity of humanity arises from individual ethical intuitions and their acceptance in human communities."
You seem to take the last part "and their acceptance in human communities," to mean Steiner is giving authority to the collective -- perhaps to the State -- to decide which intuitions are true. But given the tenor of all Steiner's thought, I'd say another reading of the added phrase would be far more reasonable. All Steiner is saying is that part of the arising of moral activity is due to the fact that human communities take up and become active with the moral intuitions of those who are morally creative. Steiner is not giving any authority to the collective there. If no one had ever accepted Christ, think of all the moral activity that would never have arisen, because the human community refused altogether to perceive what Christ revealed. Thus the human community would not have become active on behalf of Christian ideals. The morally creative individual relies in many ways on the community to help realize, spread, and improve his intuitions. Think how much Steiner relied on others to take up what he had to offer. If no one asked him a question, he tended to keep silent about a subject! He waited, evidently, till doctors approached him, before he lectured on medicine. He waited till priests approached him, before he lectured on Christian communion, etc. He waited till he was asked about education, before he built up Waldorf Ed. The same with biodynamic agriculture, special education, etc.
harmony of intentions
I think you are accurately describing what Steiner is saying. I was interested in why he later added the "and their acceptance in human communities". While this is true, and could be realized in the original text,it does justify a top down leadership community.
He might have gone the other direction mentioned in chp. 9 "The Idea Of Freedom" about achieving a harmony of intentions where each ones individual intuitions find integration within the group. At the time of the revisions he may not have felt that optimistic considering the struggle he had with the anthroposophical society community building efforts. For him to take leadership of that group meant he gave up on the higher ideal.
He is simply rounding out
He is simply rounding out the general point, making room for obvious examples. Not so dramatic.
Post new comment