/lit/ - Literature

tell us more about it

>>21206095
The book is an experience, so it’s best to read it. The qrd
Man has the capacity to develop freedom even though usually he doesn’t exercise it. The free act comes not from an authority or an animal drive but from an inner impulse free from the senses. All knowledge is accessible within experience itself,, because perceptual objects also have a conceptual counterpart which is as much a part of them as is a blossom of a flower. The mind is universal, the concept of a triangle is not individual, it is the same in every mind. Emotions are individual, they are experienced as my own, they are not universal. Because the mind is universal, what I experience as arising in the mind is a real part of the object, the mind is a sensory organ perceiving the mental picture of the object.

Each sentence is pretty much a chapter, he explains it much better than I do. The whole book thoroughly disproves kants notion that there is limits to knowledge and inaccessible knowledge. Also disproves Schopenhauer and von Hartman philosophically. It’s not a long read but is pretty life changing in its philosophical conclusions I found

Literally started reading this yesterday Anon, glad to see other Steiner appreciators here

>>21206260
This is just Hegel.

>>21205829
>another atheist infatuated with german ''thinkers''

Is this the one he wrote while Nietzsche's sister had hired him to oversee Nietzsche's estate? Doesn't it have him describing his meeting with Nietzsche during his insane period? Very sad if I remember

>>21206260
Have you ever read Colin Wilson's thoughts on "the robot"? It's an accessible introduction to Gurdjieff and has a lot of crossover with Steiner. I think Steiner had a better conception of freedom but the way they describe the actual work (basically a phenomenological yoga of cultivating one's essential freedom and subordinating the un-free parts of oneself to it) is quite similar and they can shine light on each other

How To Know Higher Worlds is also really good

>>21205829
tell us more about it

>>21206456
No I’ve never read that, I’ll look it up. How to know higher worlds is great as is occult science, and I think my favorite Steiner is his cycle on the gospel of St. John. Also Samael Aun Weors books take his teaching to a new level

>>21206260
>The free act comes not from an authority or an animal drive but from an inner impulse FREE from the SENSES.

>The mind is universal

>The mind is a sensory organ

kek

>>21207625
>thinks the action isn't coming from an impulse beyond the mind and the mind doesnt simply reify it from the transcendental realm to the physical
Oh nonono hahaha

>>21207644
There's nothing beyond the mind retard. You even said that for Steiner the mind is universal. Not only does your position pose a dualism of substance between the transcendental and the physical, but on top of that it puts the mind in a lower level as a mere instrument of reification or intermediary between the two. That is, your theory is so little parsimonious that you need 3 entities to explain reality. Simply absurd. I don't want to imagine what your answer to account for the interactionism between this things would be like.

>>21207718
>There's nothing beyond the mind retard
Wrong
>You even said that for Steiner the mind is universal.
Something being universal doesn't grant it the status of the most high, it's just a feature of its existence, these two have no relation
>Not only does your position pose a dualism of substance between the transcendental and the physical
Dualism implies that they are separate, steiners exposition is radically monistic, it's called the philosophy of monism because it states that all knowledge is within experience.
>puts the mind in a lower
Anon can't into monism, filtered before lvl1, many such cases

>>21207753
You can't be a monist and say that an entity is beyond another entity. I'm using your words. Something being an universal means that everything that exists, exists within it. It's not a matter of lower or higher. Reality is not a hierarchy. You can't have a universal which doesn't encompass everything. If there is something BEYOND it then it's not universal.
If the transcendental, the mind, and the objects are not separate, why then you call them with three different names?

>>21207850
>You can't be a monist and say that an entity is beyond another entity. I'm using your words
Sure you can when they are different components of the same thing
>If the transcendental, the mind, and the objects are not separate, why then you call them with three different names?
This makes as little sense as saying, why do you call a blossom and a leaf different things and then say they're not separate?
> Something being an universal means that everything that exists, exists within it. It's not a matter of lower or higher. Reality is not a hierarchy. You can't have a universal which doesn't encompass everything.
The mind is universal in the sense I described it, the concept of a triangle is the same in your mind and in mine, pure concepts aren't individual, while the feeling of sadness isn't universal because it has different characteristics in each individual

>>21205829
Literally started reading this yesterday Anon, glad to see other Steiner appreciators here

>>21206411
Steiner admits Hegel already did it but apparently nobody got the message so Steiner had to try again. He said that in Wahrheit und Wissenschaft the preliminary to his Philosophy of Freedom.

>>21207644
> If, accordingly, we have assumed, from a non-speculative point of view, the immaterial nature of the soul, and are met by the objection that experience seems to prove that the growth and decay of our mental faculties are mere modifications of the sensuous organism—we can weaken the force of this objection by the assumption that the body is nothing but the fundamental phenomenon, to which, as a necessary condition, all sensibility, and consequently all thought, relates in the present state of our existence; and that the separation of soul and body forms the conclusion of the sensuous exercise of our power of cognition and the beginning of the intellectual. The body would, in this view of the question, be regarded, not as the cause of thought, but merely as its restrictive condition, as promotive of the sensuous and animal, but as a hindrance to the pure and spiritual life; and the dependence of the animal life on the constitution of the body, would not prove that the whole life of man was also dependent on the state of the organism.

Yes

>We may assume that this life is nothing more than a sensuous representation of pure spiritual life; that the whole world of sense is but an image, hovering before the faculty of cognition which we exercise in this sphere, and with no more objective reality than a dream; and that if we could intuite ourselves and other things as they really are, we should see ourselves in a world of spiritual natures, our connection with which did not begin at our birth and will not cease with the destruction of the body. And so on.

YESSSSS

>We cannot be said to know what has been above asserted, nor do we seriously maintain the truth of these assertions; and the notions therein indicated are not even ideas of reason, they are purely fictitious conceptions. But this hypothetical procedure is in perfect conformity with the laws of reason. Our opponent mistakes the absence of empirical conditions for a proof of the complete impossibility of all that we have asserted; and we have to show him that be has not exhausted the whole sphere of possibility and that he can as little compass that sphere by the laws of experience and nature, as we can lay a secure foundation for the operations of reason beyond the region of experience. Such hypothetical defences against the pretensions of an opponent must not be regarded as declarations of opinion. The philosopher abandons them, so soon as the opposite party renounces its dogmatical conceit. To maintain a simply negative position in relation to propositions which rest on an insecure foundation, well befits the moderation of a true philosopher; but to uphold the objections urged against an opponent as proofs of the opposite statement is a proceeding just as unwarrantable and arrogant as it is to attack the position of a philosopher who advances affirmative propositions regarding such a subject.

[gets raptured in ecstasy]