Tom,

"Presuppose" can also mean "to require as an antecedent in fact" and I think that's more the sense that is meant here. Just as answering a letter presupposes receiving one, the action of the heart and soul mood presupposes having something to let enter (or not!) In other words, they don't create it; it has to exist first.

I looked up the German in the handy side-by-side feature that you told me about, and then on the handy online German dictionary that you also gave me the address for. What a great addition to POF study tools! Anyway, I wanted to see what the German word was that got translated into "presuppose," and it turned out to be an exact translation.

Hi Jeff

I'm not sure what Tom meant by third parties sometimes ruining relationships but I have seen people do that to each other. We had a person like that on the farm who specialized in planting thoughts in one person about another person they were close to, for the specific purpose of creating a tension between the two people and drawing one or the other closer to her. I didn't believe she was actually doing this until I saw it happen time and time again, in many different situations, with different sets of people. As a therapist, do you run into this sometimes, as a habit that people sometimes take up? Perhaps it may not even be a conscious habit! But an acute assessment of where the thoughts originated can lead back to such a person, and a really fearless person could call them on this habit before it causes a lot of damage. A person who is fearlessly confident of their ability to trace back the origins of the thought and understand the situation, that is. I tend to wait around until something is thoroughly proven a hundred times.

9-10 Were the ability to get on with one another not a basic part of human nature, no external laws would be able to implant it in us.

12-11 In other words, I am free only when I myself produce these mental pictures, not when I am merely able to carry out the motives which another being has implanted in me.

It's often a huge moment in therapy when a person realizes that some notion/thought/feeling that they've been carrying around most of their lives is actually an implant from one of their primary care takers. In psychodynamics they call the process of such implanting "introjection".

In 12-11 Steiner again points to freedom being a self-emergent phenomena.

"But enough of examples which prove that many argue against freedom without knowing in the least what freedom is." This sentence is like a door slamming shut on what (Steiner seems to imply) may have been a more casual inquiry into the possibility of freedom. Now we are really going to get down to business.

All actions with unknown motives are defined as unfree. Now the focus of our inquiry will be on actions whose motives are known. We may not know yet what freedom is, but we know what it is not. The question is, is it possible that actions with known motives can be free?

What is the difference between actions with known motives and unknown motives? Knowing. What does "knowing" mean? Under certain conditions it will remain impossible for us to answer this question! For, as Steiner says, "...it is impossible to form a concept of knowledge about anything, and therefore of knowledge about an action," unless we do something else first.

This thing we have to do first is to gain knowledge, or recognition, of the thinking acitivity of the soul. He puts it in a more particular way: we're led, by the act of trying to distinguish between actions with known motives and actions with unknown motives, to the question of the origin and meaning of thinking. This seems to me like a big leap. We didn't know we were opening such a huge can of worms when we confidently thought that we could know our own motives! But Steiner gives us the stick: unless we recognize (he uses Erkinntnis, a German noun with a host of meanings around knowledge, philosophical knowledge, cognition, etc.) the thinking activity of the soul, we will never know what it means to know our own motives. And he gives us the carrot: once we learn what thinking in general means, it'll be easy to say what it means with regard to our own actions.

All of this makes perfect sense, but now comes the part that drives me wild. The more I look at it, the more irritated I get, because I don't understand why he puts in the next sentence! "As Hegel rightly says, 'It is thinking that turns the soul, which the animals also possess, into spirit.'" There are several things about this sentence. One is, that he pays Hegel the compliment of being the first philosopher in Chapter One who said something Steiner agrees with. That in itself makes us sit up and pay attention. Another thing is, that what Hegel said seems to be answering part of the Big Question we have to face about "the origin and meaning of thinking." The meaning of thinking, at least in part, is that it turns soul into spirit. And Steiner says that this is rightly said, and then he uses it to justify the idea that thinking gives to human action its characteristic stamp.

This is what bothers me. He's been leading us along, in logical steps, to the recognition that we have to face the question of "the origin and meaning of thinking". He says it, and then he justifies it most carefully. And then, out of the blue, he sticks in this quotation from Hegel, and says that it's "rightly said." As if it were enough that Hegel said it, and that Steiner is giving us permission to believe it!

So what if we do believe it! Does that really have anything to do with what came before it, or even with what comes after it? We're supposed to be thinking critically here, not just finding nice things to believe about how thinking turns our soul into spirit and separates us from mere animals. Are we really supposed to have even part of our question about "the origin and meaning of thinking" answered by a quotation from Hegel just because Steiner agrees with it?

I'm stuck here in this thicket of thorns. Sometimes when you read a mystery novel, you come across some apparent gaff by the writer that gives the whole plot away unintentionally, and it's irritating, just like this part of POF is. But if the writer is good, the apparent gaff turns out to serve a function in the plot and, far from giving it away, actually deepens the mystery. I have a lot of faith that Steiner's a good writer and meant to do exactly what he did here for some reason of his own. The reason I'm irritated is, I can't even begin to imagine right now what that reason is!

As any good detective in a mystery novel would be, I'm convinced that until all the pieces fit the crime is not really solved. Clues, anyone?

What a great clue, Jeff! You ask, "What experience did you have a paragraph earlier when Steiner wrote:"What distinguishes man from all other organic beings arises from his rational thinking."

I should have seen the similarity between the two statements, simply because I keep forgetting which one of them comes where, because they're sort of alike. But the Hegel quote really is a development out of the earlier one. What arises from his rational thinking distinguishes man from all other organic beings; thinking turns the soul into spirit. It's a development, because in the first sentence we're being compared to all organic beings, and in the second one, to only sentient beings.

The first sentence didn't seem bothersome, I guess because he's already talking about how decisions come about, conscious vs unconscious motives, etc. And because then he focuses on the activity, which we have in common with all life. What if he had said "What distinguishes man from all other organic beings arises from his rational thinking. As Hegel said, rightly, 'It is thinking that turns the soul, which the animals also possess, into spirit.'" Then I probably would have objected too, because he brings in "spirit." On the other hand, if Steiner hadn't phrased the Hegel sentence to indicate approval, I would have just viewed it as one idea among others that we might consider. The fact that he expresses approval gives it extra weight.

Now I wonder if one of the purposes of all the intervening text between these two sentences wasn't to prepare us for the second sentence. Also I wonder why he had to bring in Hegel at all! Why couldn't he just say the thing himself? He must have had a good reason for bringing in Hegel, and so Hegel must do something to the sentence. I know what Hegel makes me think of, but don't know that he reminds other people of the same thing. He makes me think of taking a thesis and an antithesis that make an apparent dilemma, and then rising above the dilemma to make a synthesis. I've been thinking that the whole business about Action vs. Freedom is like thesis and antithesis. Action whose motive isn't known is antithetical to freedom. But through thinking we can learn to know the motives of the action, and then there's synthesis.

Thanks for the clue! And now I think I can grasp a little more your dilemma about "self."

I've been having trouble with Hegel's line about how thinking turns soul into spirit, and have been looking for clues as to why Steiner put it here.

Another clue is that, earlier in this same paragraph, Steiner says that we must gain a recognition (Erkinntnis, knowledge) of the thinking activity of the soul. At least, he says that without it we won't be able to form a concept of what knowledge about anything is. The clue part, for me, is that he characterizes thinking as an activity of the soul (German: Seele) and that Hegel uses the same word.

So how has he been characterizing thinking all throughout the first chapter? I looked at all the times he mentions "thinking," and "thought," and found that the first time thinking is credited (by name) with some kind of determining function in our choice of motive is in 1.7, where Steiner rebuts Hamerling : "And if, through my character, or through circumstances prevailing in my environment, a motive is forced on me which to my thinking is unreasonable, then I should even have to be glad if I could not do what I want (will)."

Directly after, Steiner starts saying a lot of things about thinking. He says: What distinguishes man from all other organic beings arises from his rational thinking. (1.8) Next, a question about whether known motives confer freedom on an action is followed by: "This leads us to the question of the origin and meaning of thinking. For without the recognition of the thinking activity of the soul, it is impossible to form a concept of knowledge about anything, and therefore of knowledge about an action. When we know what thinking in general means, it will be easy to get clear about the role that thinking plays in human action. As Hegel rightly says, "It is thinking that turns the soul, which the animals also possess, into spirit." Therefore it will also be thinking that gives to human action its characteristic stamp." (1.9)

Then, in those mysterious final passages about mental images and love, he says: "...as soon as our conduct rises above the sphere of the satisfaction of purely animal desires, our motives are always permeated by thoughts." (1.10) and "...thought is the father of feeling." (1.11)

Finally, he closes the chapter with: "However we approach the matter, it becomes more and more clear that the question of the nature of human action presupposes that of the origin of thinking." (1.12)

Now I begin to see that throughout the chapter Steiner is really trying to get us to distinguish ourselves from animals, and our actions from those of animals. It's almost as though the part, in 1.8, about how scientists are on the wrong track when they use the analogy of animal actions to explain human actions, is in some way the very heart of the chapter, and this because of the thinking that sets us apart from animals.

First this is characterized as rational thinking. Then it becomes, "the thinking activity of the soul." Then it is thinking that plays a role in human action. Then, " thinking that turns the soul, which the animals also possess, into spirit." Thinking that gives to human action its characteristic stamp. Thinking that permeates all motives beyond purely animal desires. Thinking that is the father of feeling. By the end of the chapter, it is far more than what we normally think of as "rational thinking."

I suppose the Hegel passage, then, is meant to come as a shock. It's like a sudden red streak in a painting of greens and blues. We're quietly walking through this nice green landscape, contemplating the work ahead but not yet doing it, when all of a sudden, as Jeff said, there's this big red thing blocking our path. We can't go around it and can't go through it; we just have to climb right over it and stop at the top to see the view from there. It's a different view than we've been seeing, because he hasn't been talking about "spirit," up to now. In fact, the only time he mentions it in this chapter is in the very first sentence: "Is man in his thinking and acting a spiritually free being, or is he compelled by the iron necessity of purely natural law?"

It's still kind of mysterious to me why he should bring it up here, but now I'm willing just to register the shock and move on. And now I suddenly remember that in one of his books or lectures (can't remember which) he talks a lot about how very important it is, in teaching, to give students something they can't understand right away, something for later. Maybe this passage is my "something for later."

Hi all,

I've really enjoyed reading this thread - here's my contribution:

I see that in Chapter One, Steiner sets up the following progression of "straw man" theories in order to lead us beyond them:

1. Human action as on the same level as a stone (Spinoza)
2. Human action as determined by our individual characterological disposition (von Hartmann)
3. Human action as determined by the strongest motive (Hamerling)
4. Human action as determined by "internal and invisible causes" "within the skull of an ass" (Ree - now there's an interesting stage prop in the drama of knowledge!)

Steiner's insistence on us starting to follow the idea of freedom through to the end for ourselves in this chapter leads us to observe and draw from our own experience confirmation of the fact that within human behaviour there is something which is not determined by any of the above.

In this context I see the quote from Hegel as a "logical" necessity in a dramatic sense - in order to help us to experience the drama of knowledge here, he makes us work to confirm his assertions at each point by drawing on our own experience, not merely be drawn along by an abstract line of reasoning.

For myself, having been educated to value logical, clear presentations of theory, I find that the book contains constant "shocks" like these which appear at the end of Steiner drawing me along a certain line of reasoning.  I find again again that he then  suddenly throws in something like this which challenges me to go back and re-read all that has gone before to check where I missed a turning, so to speak. 

And for myself I can say that on a good day I'm sometimes able to find where I've missed the turning, retrace my steps and then rejoin Steiner at the crossroads, so to speak!

Having always valued theoretical, abstract frameworks I have tended to look down on any argument that draws primarily on practical experience, however in this book Steiner is adventuring in a world (philosophy) where the most abstract lines of thought abound and dominate but also keeping one finger, as it were Aristotle-like, pointing at our own practical life experience at all times - after all, he is not defining human action as different from the kind of action we observe in stones and animals, for example, he is asking us to find and confirm the difference for ourselves.

Once we have worked through the drama of the chapter and defeated the straw men to our own satisfaction it may be that we can feel more comfortable with Steiner's very broad and sweeping statements at the end.

I can't grasp what it means to understand my own motives if I don't know what understanding itself means, if I don't face the question of the origin and meaning of thinking in my own way.

One meaning of thinking, Steiner has just said (through Hegel) is that it turns the soul, which animals also possess, into spirit. That idea does nothing for me at the moment, because I already believe it, and I want to get rid of what I already believe when I study PoF. And Steiner also has just said, that thinking gives to human action its characteristic stamp. I looked up the German word "Gepraege" which Steiner uses here, and it means stamp in the sense of an imprint, not, for instance, an identifying stamp, or "the stamp of approval."

So even on my most thoughtless acts, acts of which my reason would not approve, a kind of thinking presses down and makes its mark. What is this thinking? Many times I've done something stupid and said afterwards, "What was I thinking?" Or I might characterize some impulsive acquaintance as "someone who doesn't think," Obviously these statements arise from a very narrow meaning of the word. Just because we don't consider the possible results of an action, or because we don't predict those results accurately, doesn't mean we're not thinking. When I've done something impulsive that I'm sorry for later, I know perfectly well that there was a thought in there somewhere, however erroneous.

I'm right in step with Steiner when he says, "On no account should it be said that all our action springs only from the sober deliberations of our reason." And the following idea, that even the highest human actions don't necessarily proceed from abstract judgment, also makes me happy because I don't think abstract judgment always has the best answers. (Who got the Starship Enterprise out of its worst difficulties? It was usually Captain James T. Kirk, not Spock!)

In saying these things, Steiner seems to want to to make sure that, when we start looking at the meaning and origin of thinking, we don't look at just one narrow little slice of it. He doesn't want us to mistakenly characterize thinking in its larger sense as all "sober reason" or "abstract judgment." I can see now that the Hegel sentence, about thinking turning the soul into spirit, really prepares us to enlarge our definition of what thinking is.

On the other hand, he does want us to begin to grasp the difference between "driving forces" and "motives," as they are going to be defined throughout PoF. So on one side he puts such driving forces as love, and on the other side the motives. The driving forces, which can't be analyzed away into concepts, which contain heart and soul elements beyond what can be so analyzed, are what allow us to turn motives into actions. The motives, however, are always permeated by thoughts, and always come first in the sequence. They can't be created by the heart and soul-mood, no matter how strong or active these may be.

They can only stand at the door and wait to be admitted by the heart and soul-mood. Maybe this is the door of opportunity for freedom!

In the Human and Cosmic Thought model, this section of PoF is where the Dynamist steps in with his view. I can picture one version of this dynamic, artistic person so well, because I once had a crazy artist boyfriend, Rocky. He did impulsive things all the time that got him into a lot of trouble, such as the day we were walking past a McDonald's and he reeled down the American flag so he could tie a balloon to it. The manager who came charging out couldn't see any humor at all in the situation!

The only two things Rocky was serious about were his art, and the right way to live. He thought people should live in a larger, more passionate way, and stop worrying about all of society's rules. He didn't talk intelligibly about his philosophy, but rather he lived it. The heart and the mood of the soul really did hold sway in just about everything he did. And he won over many art-establishment people with the sheer energy of his art, even though he didn't believe that, as a naturally gifted artist, he should cramp his style by trying to master the discipline of his artistic medium.

Rocky also had a terrible temper, but whenever he flew into one of his rages it was fairly easy for me to talk him out of it by using calm reasoning. I could sometimes give him a different direction to channel his energies by giving him a reasoned motive, such as getting a job so that he could get his rickety old car fixed.

One of the many things I learned from Rocky while we were together is that some people who are so set on relying on the strength of the forces flowing through their heart and soul, rely on their significant others to balance out the one-sided energy by becoming the oh-so-responsible adult in every situation. Adults supply motives to people who never grow up.

And now that I'm studying PoF I can see how something similar works in the way our cultural motives are supplied to us by our cultural leaders. Because we don't think very deeply about things, we leave our hearts and souls, which must have something in the nature of thinking to work with, open to the motives supplied by those who are eager to do so, to gain some advantage of their own.

I supplied reasoned motives to Rocky because I wanted some level of basic economic and psychological stability. What sort of motives are being supplied to me, by whom, and with what aim?