Lucius Fox

Review of Nederlandse Vereniging Antrops...

Rudolf Steiner's most remarkable trait was that he...

Rudolf Steiner's most remarkable trait was that he thought he was an expert in just about all aspects of human existence. From his (neurotic) narcissism, he invented theories of what is best for babies, toddlers, preschoolers, children, adolescents and "adults". He also knew the best way of life for pregnant women, the elderly and the disabled. The originally philosophically trained (fairy tale) storyteller (of among other things the "truth") also considered himself a born autodidact from agriculture. After all, he believed he had extensive knowledge of the theory of cause and effect ("karma"). Central to this was the thesis that only one way of life is correct: his "anthroposophy". Anthroposophy is thus an outgrowth of Christianity.

Philosopher John Gray clarifies this as follows: For polytheists, religion is a matter of practice, not belief; and there are many ways of practice. For Christians, religion is a matter of true faith. If only one belief can be true, any way of living in which that belief is not accepted must be an error. Polytheists may jealously watch over their gods, but they are not missionaries. Without monotheism, humanity would certainly still have been one of the most violent animals, but it would have been spared wars of religion. If the world had remained polytheistic, communism or "global democratic capitalism" would not have emerged. "

Wittgenstein's thought about which one cannot speak, one must be silent about it was published shortly before Steiner's death. The Anthroposophic sect had already been founded by Steiner at the time, and it is unlikely that anyone who thinks he knows all about himself would have taken this idea to heart.

What if Steiner had had Wittgenstein's insight of his own at an earlier point (for example because he had been treated by a good psychiatrist)? Then the consequences would not have been that he had produced books (= cause) that deliberately only the 'initiates' could understand (= possible effect; if there is 'understanding': of course these are interpretations of follower anthroposophists, interpretations that favor a majority by deriving power from them, i.e. intimidating others with the acquired 'knowledge'), and there had been no hordes of ignorant know-it-alls who consider themselves wise when in reality they have read at most the cover of an anthroposophical book (= empirical / observable consequence; it goes without saying that power over the other is also the main motive for the second target group).

Incidentally, Steiner seems to have never noticed any incongruity between stating that his 'teachings' could only be understood by a few, and that he considered it important for large communities to be obedient to his 'work' as 'the truth'. 'should accept.