Page 1 of 1
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:27 am
I think it’s relatively well known that members such as Nefastos, Wyrmfang, RaktaZoci etc. have studied Theosophy quite a lot, but I was wondering what they and others felt about Rudolf Steiner’s successive Anthroposophy movement. I’m curious because, aside from perhaps Julius Evola, he’s one of the few 20th century philosophers who openly espoused some sort of esotericism, or could alternatively be said to have ‘converted’. As far as I understand, he also used the term “Christ” in quite a novel way. As you can probably guess, all of this is secondary knowledge, but from the little I’ve read about him, his dual conception of Jesus seems similar in orientation to the paths of descension and ascension we talk about…
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:32 am
Jiva wrote:I think it’s relatively well known that members such as Nefastos, Wyrmfang, RaktaZoci etc. have studied Theosophy quite a lot, but I was wondering what they and others felt about Rudolf Steiner’s successive Anthroposophy movement.
I have thought this also. Good topic. When I was reading a lot of Theosophical literature few years back, I also read some Steiner's books, but never got a good grip on his writings. There was always some aspect that didn't seem right, still I'm not sure what was that off-button in Steiner's philosophy, but in Theosophy it was lacking.
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:48 pm
I have studied Steiner but a little. For me his style relies too much upon clairvoyant's (namely, his own) authority that can't be verified in any way. His focus is usually on formal, natural side of things, of which he just tells people how the invisible side works. That's problematic, it's just his word against everything else. Some people that does not bother, but for me it puts great burden upon the the stylistic/artistic side of those teachings, because they become like the whole where these texts can be weighed & tried: other is simple "you either believe this or not" that was usual for the teachings derived from the second wave (beginning of the 20th century) theosophy.
Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2015 3:18 pm
I am aware of Steiner, but not of his teachings an sich. I have an experience though from a friend of mine, who went to Steiner school for the first years, 7 years and up. Her remembrance from that period is far from positive. Somehow she had felt that the things thought were not really explained to them (the children) and I'm not really sure how well children might percieve these kind of things in the first place. So, not really a fan.
EDIT: Also, I'm a bit concerned about these kind of institutions as the mentioned Steiner school. I think a child should be given the opportunity to make his/her own choices and not brainwash them to some model like this. Raising a child start from the parents and from home and it should reflect outwards. I see this kind of behaviour as a sort of extension to parents' own agenda rather than as the best interest to the child.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 12:58 am
Thank you for the replies
. Perhaps I should expand a bit more on why I’ll definitely be reading some of Steiner’s works in the future and see if anyone has any further comments
Firstly and most importantly, his particular area of study as an academic philosopher was Fichte, and so I’m interested in his journey from a quite literally egocentric philosophy to what I assume is more of a monistic Theosophical point of view. Perhaps the remnants of this early interest influenced his egotistical – and what seems to be approaching the messianic – later philosophy.
And secondly, because he also seems to emphasise the Christian tradition and the localisation of mythologies to specific racial (or possibly evolutional) areas. While I don’t agree with this, it’s an opinion I find fascinating for some reason. This was something Jung kind of adhered to as well, and I’ve read case studies on other people who also propagated such views (who almost always seem to be Christians for some reason).
I think the issues of his egoism and racial evolutionary theories coincide at some point. My secondhand impression is that he believed everybody had the ability to tap into all past human evolutionary experience via the akashic record which could accordingly be developed to reach new peaks, rather than receiving teachings from specific hierarchies of initiates e.g. Blavatsky and the Hidden Masters.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 12:09 pm
His ideas about the fallen angels - Lucifer, Ahriman, Satan - is also interesting, & it seems to have given quite an impact on other occultists' teachings on the subject.