use Ctrl+ to increase page size
The wondering I - part one
Kantian thought vs. Steiner's 'dynamic monism'
Introduction
In this writing , an attempt is being made ,to articulate into comprehensive system of thought, a worldview ,that I believe can shed light on many of the questions that modern humanity struggles with.
When observing the way in which the conditions and riddles of contemporary humanity are reflected in the individual human being, we can see a major shift from past times both in the amount of content that the individual is being exposed to, and also in it's assertive demand on the individual to form an opinion about the events that he actively being exposed to everyday. This assertion could be grasped in a two fold manner : it confronts the human being from outside, presenting manifold opinions and world views, demanding cognitive response, and at the same time , it also have the potential to intensify the feeling of emancipation from this assertions through creating inner sphere of cognition within the individual, that looks for other means to receive and reach the truth. this is the double call of the zeitgeist , the spirit of the age.
one of the more apparent cognitive aspects in which this dichotomy appear is in the sphere of morality , because of it's connection to the deepest beliefs one have , and the way it permeates all aspects of human conduction.
the question of morality will be discussed, venturing from Gilad's concept of morality, as was briefly presented in 'the wandering who':
'Temporality is inherent to the human condition. ‘To be’ is ‘to be in time’..Ethics, as reflected by Kant’s categorical imperative, is also bound up with temporality: ‘act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law’. Kant reviews the moral act in respect to its temporal perspective. The universal law is looked upon from the perspective of the future and past. Ethics and temporality can be seen as an endless dialogue between ‘yesterday’ and ‘tomorrow’.."
Atzmon, Gilad. The Wandering Who: A Study of Jewish Identity Politics (pp. 178-179).
It's not surprising , that Kant is mentioned by Gilad as an authority in moral question.
the philosophy of Kant, noted above on his 'categorical imperatives', was a turn point in the evolution of human thought , and until this day is one of the most influential. It defined and legitimate the feeling of alienation of the human soul from the world around it ,placing it on the the firm foundations of the new scientific discoveries of that time. To understand why , we will summarize his world view and it's peculiar way of deciphering the world , through citing from Rudolf Steiner philosophical works ,in which he took great trouble to elucidate Kant abstract and complicated writings , and summarize it to the common reader. We will also compare Kantian ideas with Steiner's own system of thought, as was elaborated in his 'Philosophy of freedom' and other works. I believe that Steiner does a fine job in his presentation of Kant's philosophy , summing up neatly the writings which the great Goethe refer to as ' the labyrinth i could not enter' , implying to the chilling analytic style of Kant's writings.
What made Kant's philosophy so appealing to the people of his time, and what makes it still so effective in our modern times?
Emanuel Kant was a philosopher of the 18th century enlightenment.
the vigorous thrusting forward of natural sciences and their way of conduction left a great impression on the souls of that time. The results of physiognomy study showed that naïve approach that ascribe validity to what our senses perception receives as part of the reality of the world could not be sustained . outside , there is all kind of motions of frequencies, inside us this motions trigger other motions, and chemical procedures , that eventually, in unfathomed manner, arise the perception .we can regard the color red, for example, only as an appearance within our own constitution. Kant thus came to the conclusion – " when I perceive the color red, the perception red is, to be sure, a state, a process, within me, but it is necessary for me to have an occasion to perceive red. There are, therefore, 'things in themselves ', but we know nothing about them except the fact that they exist. everything that we observe belong to the appearances within us. Therefore, in order to save the certainty of the mathematical and natural scientific truths, Kant has taken the whole world of observation in the human mind. In doing so , however , he has raised insurmountable barriers to the faculty of knowledge, for everything that we know refers merely to processes within ourselves, to appearances or phenomena, not to "thing in themselves".
What we call knowledge of the world of phenomena is constructed, and direct us , only to our own constitution:
"The nature of my mind requires that every effect will have a cause and that two times two is four. It is in accordance with this nature that that the mind construct a world for itself. No matter how the world outside ourselves might be constructed, today's world might not coincide in even single trait with that of yesterday. This can never concern us for our mind produces it's own world according to it's own laws. As long as the human mind remain unchanged, it will proceed in the same way in the construction of the world. Mathematics and natural sciences do not contain the laws of the external world but those of our own mental organisation. It is, therefore , only necessary to investigate this organisation if we want to know what is unconditionally true."reason does not derive it's laws from nature, but prescribe them to nature"
Kant sums up his conviction in this sentence.
The only connection Kant can ascribe to human beings with higher truths is through the voice of duty , which speaks within us emphatically and distinctly: "You are morally obliged to do this and that", this "categorical imperatives" imposes on us an obligation we are incapable of avoiding. Kant philosophical system can not find within the human existence the means that will lead to neither free will, immortality or god.
But he do not wish to reject their existence either ,therefore , through the direct experience of the moral duty, he induce their existence:
"The observance of the categorical imperatives leads to virtue. It is only through virtue that man can arrive it his destination. He becomes worthy of happiness, it is mandatory that a being exist who secure this happiness as an effect of virtue. this can only be an intelligent being, determining the highest value of things:
God."
Because man is a sensual being and can not obtain perfect happiness in this imperfect world, his existence must transcend this sensual existence. That is to say , the soul most be immortal. the very thing that we denied possible knowledge is, therefore , magically produced by Kant out of the moral belief in the voice of duty. The belief that this moral law has it's being above all other events of the world and is made real within the world by a divine being is, in Kant's opinion, true religion. It springs from the moral life man is to be good, not because of his belief in god whose will demands the good, he is to be good only because of his feeling for duty. he is to believe in god , however , because duty without god would be meaningless. this is religion within the limits of mere reason.
Since Kant could not find thoughts as having connection with the essence of the world – the things in themselves , he also could not regards a self conscious ego as rooted in the essence of the world .
The self conscious ego by itself does not find a place in the nature picture of modern science. If the self conscious , in filling itself with thought, is not merely aware that it forms this thought, but recognizes in thought a life of which it can know : "this life can realize itself also outside myself" , then this self conscious ego can arrive at the insight, "I hold within myself something that can also be found without".
The only way in which Kant is able to acknowledge and secure man's self conscious ego is through the moral call, the voice of duty.
Kant idea of morality and ethics do not see it as springing forth from the world of ideas, that man derive through experience of reality. The only way it is connected to what the world send to us is by means of negation- the moral deed is the contrary of everything that is pleasurable :
"Duty! Thou sublime great name that contains nothing pleasurable to bid for our favour, but demand submission, proclaiming a law in presence of which all inclinations are silenced, although they may secretly offer resistance.."(critique of practical reason)
The call of duty , springing forth from the moral impulse , is also induced from the laws of pure reason. Kant view on moral judgement is the cradle of today's universal morality :
"Reason , separated from all empirical experience, can determine the principle according to which all ends can be determined as moral. It is this fundamental principle of moral reason that is known as the categorical imperatives. Pure practical reason is the process of determining what ought to be done without reference to empirical contingent factors"
"Moral questions are determined independent of reference to a particular subject posing them. It is because morality is determined by pure practical reason rather than particular empirical or sensuous factors that morality is universally valid. this moral universalism has come to be seen as distinctive aspect of Kant's moral philosophy, and had wide social impact in the legal and political concepts of human rights and equality " (wikipedia , categorical imperatives).
There are couple of inherited presuppositions in Kantianism , and it's moral universalism :
1) Humans can not have knowledge , from the experience of reality , as through world events ,about the super sensible foundations
of existence, that belong to the 'things in themselves'.
2) the spiritual part of the world ,and of man , could not be reached , or researched by man . therefore , insight into the question of the spiritual
development of humanity , and the development of the monotheistic religions in this contexts, are also out of human reach.
3) The moral act is prescribed to man , through reasoning , reflected in the categorical imperatives. Human experiences ( particular empirical or
sensuous factors) and the world of ideas that it evokes could not be part of moral judgement. Moral questions are determined independent
of reference to a particular subject posing them.
Kantian philosophy and moral universalism had a great influence on the development of western intellectual life and politics. Inspired by the prevailing materialistic thought frame of that time, it limited itself to what is safe to say , within the boundaries of pure reasoning. But humans are much more than their reasoning faculties . we are a self conscious ,creative ego beings , who are constantly inspired both by experience and by our world of ideas. A footstep into the 21th century , reality itself refute moral universalism, and the attempt to conduct life within the artificial boundaries of pure reason.
In a multitude of 'particular subject posing them', we are confronted with moral questions that ridicule the notion of attempting to address them by a categorical imperatives . Genetics intervention , trans humanism , vaccination , terrorism , Multiculturalism, are all issues that challenge us to address them in a much broader and deeper perspective , in which we make use of the total human experience to fathom the total of human nature , and it's connection with the "essence of things".
I would like to give an example of an issue that demonstrate that in reality, moral impulses are derived in quite different manner than what moral universalism imply:
Without conducting in depth discussion , lets outline two different approaches , springing from polar worldviews , to the question of vaccinations, especially the ones given for child diseases.
The first is the scientific/materialistic view, that grasp that man is basically an organic machine. he is the outcome of natural evolution , which resulted in enhance physical organization that enabled his mental and cognitive abilities. His thoughts, feeling and wills are the natural effect of this physical constitution , combined with his genes, environmental, social conditions and so on. Disease is a malfunction of this machine , that causes suffer , lack of efficient functionality of the body , and it can result in total termination (death) , and therefore should be avoided at any case.
From this point on the question of vaccination becomes only a question of statistics- what will be the possible risk, or sever, of a disease, that will justify prescribed medical treatment.
Another person might hold the view that man is a spiritual being, resides temporarily in a physical body. Upon birth, his soul begins it's journey as a sensual being. The soul is immortal, going through successive earthly lives. In between , it is taking part in a spiritual world, with other souls. it has definite duties and experiences there, just like in the earthly lives. Disease , from this perspective, becomes a more complicated term. It can be cast upon the body by the soul herself, in order to achieve certain goals through the physical and mental experiences during the ailment, and by that assist the future human being to develop in the right way. child diseases could be seen as possibly belong to this kind of procedure.
According to this view , Child that is not prevented from going through childhood disease , will grow better into his body , and therefore will be able to develop in a fuller way through his life, which effect not only his own life , but also his overall contribution to society and the evolution of mankind. on the other side , preventing ailments, even when those are known to be natural part of growing up , may cause those un-exploited experiences to be channeled into much more devastating experiences, to the individual and to society.
This two roughly outlined approaches to the question of vaccination can show that in reality , what seems like the ultimate moral act to one person, following Kant categorical imperative (immune all people, thus eliminate disease), could be grasped as potential advert to the development of other person's child, that will see vaccination , therefore, as unmoral. What Kant demarcate in the fence of practical reasoning, is only so for a specific world view, the one that rejects , although dully affirm, human individuality, freedom and immortality. especially in the case of vaccinations , but actually in many of the contemporary moral questions , we are tackled with cases that reach deeper into the essential foundations of human beings , ones that could not be grasped on a reasoning platform without being aware of ones subjectivity in this act. Therefore , the moral act is something else than prescribing theoretical laws on real events , it is something that comes to human minds through reflection on reality, on moral act of others, and what power it is derived from.
This argument was presented through the work of Rudolf Steiner , that was cited above summarizing Kant's philosophy. . He was a German spiritual seer, philosopher, and well educated in the fields of natural sciences. More than a century after Kant's work, at the age of 14, Steiner dived into this system of thought, as the first step in a 30 years study of the evolution of western philosophy.
On the second half of his life, until he departed in 1925, he established a movement of spiritual science, which he called 'Anthroposophy'. From 1900 to 1925 he gave hundreds of lectures every year, about the true essence of human beings and human evolution, the spiritual world, the kingdoms of natures, and elaborated practical ways for everyone to tread the way of developing their own spiritual faculties.
In his spiritual investigations, as well as his teachings , he strive to treat and deliver the spiritual in the same strict and ordered manner, in which natural sciences treat the physical world.
Before acknowledging the world of his clairvoyance, first by becoming a member of the theosophical society, he published a book in which he eradicate a philosophical system which he called monistic world view (which differ from other monistic views). In this book he point out to the fallacies in Kantian philosophy, and also show the possibility to bring human freedom and morality into a valid place within human experience:
'…we are so organised that the full, total reality (including that of ourselves as subjects) initially appears to us as a duality. cognition overcomes this duality by composing the thing as a whole out of the two elements of reality: the percept, and the concept worked out by thinking. Let us call the way in which the world meet us , before it has gained it's true form through cognition "the world of appearances" , in contrast to the unified reality composed of percepts and concepts .we can than say that the world is given to us as a duality, and cognition assimilates it into a monistic unity. a philosophy that proceeds from this fundamental principle can be characterised as monistic philosophy or monism. In contrast to it stand two worlds theory, or dualism. The later does not, for example, assume that there are two sides to unitary reality that are separated merely by our organisation, but that there are two worlds that are absolutely distinct from one another. dualism than seeks the explanatory principles of one world in the other…
The distinction between the perceived object and the 'thing in itself', which Kant introduced into science and which has not been overcome to this day, originates from this kind of dualism. Following what we have said, the nature of our spiritual organisation is such that a separate thing could be given only as percept. thinking than overcomes this separation by assigning each percept it's lawful place in the world totality. as long as the separated parts of the world totality are designated as percepts, we are simply following a law of our subjectivity when we make this separation. but if we consider the sum of all precepts as one part of the world, and than oppose to these precepts a second part, the "things in themselves", we are philosophising into thin air. We are just playing a game with concepts. We construct an artificial contrast and than can find no content for it's second term – since such content can be created for a separate, particular thing only out of perception.From the definition of the principle of dualism given above, it follows that dualists, working with a completely meaningless concept of the "in itself" , cannot arrive at any explanation of the world…"
One of the implications of dualism seems to be a reluctance to recognize that thinking is immanent to the center and most intimate part of a human being - his "I am', or egohood.
'The pre conditions for cognizing exist through and for the I. the I itself poses the questions of cognition. In fact , it draws them from the element of thinking, which is completely transparent within itself. If we ask ourselves question we can not answer, their content cannot be clear and distinct in every aspect. it is not the world that poses questions to us, we pose them to ourselves. Our cognition involves questions that emerge for us because of conceptual sphere, pointing to the totality, confronts a perceptual sphere, conditioned by place, time, and subjective organisation . our is to reconcile these two spheres, well known to us. At a particular time, this or that might remain unexplained because the place of our vantage point in life prevents us from perceiving the things in questions.
But what is not found today may be found tomorrow . The limits determined in this way are only temporarily , and they can be overcomed by progress in perception and thinking.'
Through the question of morality, discussed earlier, we also reach the question of free will :
'Free spirits act out of their impulses. That is , intuitions chosen by thinking from the totality of their world of ideas . the reason that unfree spirits separate a particular intuitions from their world of ideas to make it the basis of their action, lies in what the perceptual world has given them. Before coming to a decision, unfree spirits remember what someone did, or recommended, or what god command in such a case, and so forth, than they act accordingly. Free spirits have other sources of action. Purely conceptual reasons move them to select a particular concept from the sum of their concepts and translate it into action.'
To become a morally productive individual , one uses what Steiner calls 'moral imagination' ;
'The link mediating between a concept and percept is the mental picture. For an unfree spirit , this link is given in advance – motives are present in advance as mental pictures in consciousness.
This translation of concept into mental picture is always necessary for free spirits , who is driven neither by a model nor by fear of punishment.
Imagination is the chief means by which human beings produce concrete mental pictures from the sum of their ideas. Free spirits need moral imagination to realize their ideas and make them effective. Moral imagination is the source of free spirits actions. Therefore , only people who have moral imagination are really morally productive. Simple moral preachers – that is , people who spin out codes of ethics without being able to condense them to concrete mental pictures , are morally unproductive.'
In connection with the moral challenges of contemporary humanity, the following part touches the relations between Darwinism and the notion that our moral impulses and the history of ethics follows predictable , linear transition, that we are ought to follow in order to assimilate more of the "universal morality" into ourselves and our societies. This discussion also touches the tendency to regard human beings as members of a specie, which have it's legitimacy on a biological ground, but becomes erroneous in questions of morality:
'Some people have tried to retain the normative character of moral laws- at least, to the extent that they understood ethics as if it were analogues to dietetics. Dietetics derives general rules from the organism's requirements for life, so as than to affect the body on the basis of this rules. but the comparison between ethics and dietetics is false because our moral life cannot be compared with the life of the organism.The organism's activity exist without any contribution on our part. We find it's laws already present in the world. Hence we can seek the laws and apply those that we have found. but moral laws are first created by us. Before they are created, we cannot apply them. The error arise because moral laws are not created at each moment with a new content, but are inherited. Thus moral laws , inherited from ones ancestors, appear to be given, like the natural laws of the organism. but there are in no way applied by a later generation with the same legitimacy as the rules of diet. for moral laws deal with the individual and not, like natural laws, with an example of a species.
I, as an organism, am just such an example of a species; I will live according to nature if I apply the natural laws of the species to my particular case. But, as a moral being, I am an individual and have laws of my very own. [3]The view presented here seems to contradict the fundamental teachings of modern natural science known as the theory of evolution. but it only seems to be so. people understand evolution to mean the real development, according to natural laws, Of what is later from what is earlier. people understand evolution in the organic world to mean that later (more perfect) organic forms are real descendants of earlier (more imperfect) forms and developed from them according to natural laws. Adherents of the theory of organic evolution must actually imagine that there once a time on earth when a being – if it were present as an observer endowed with sufficiently long life span , could have followed with its own eyes the gradual development of reptiles from proto-amniotes…..evolutionists could never claim that, without having ever seen a reptile, they could derive the concept of reptiles, with all of their futures, from the concept of proto-amniotes..in other words, if they think consistently, evolutionists must assert that later phases of evolution really follow from earlier ones, and that if we have the concept of the imperfect and that of the perfect given to us, we will be able to see the connection. But on no account can evolutionists affirm that the concept attained from the earlier is sufficient to develop the concept of the later from it. it follows that, while ethicist can certainly see the connection between earlier and later moral concepts, not even a single new moral idea can be drawn forth from earlier ones. As moral beings, individuals produce their own content. For an ethicist, this content is just as much a given as much as reptiles are a given to the natural scientists.
Reptiles developed from proto-amniotes , but natural scientists cannot get the concept of reptiles from out of the concept of proto-amniotes. Later moral ideas develop from earlier ones, but ethicist cannot draw forth the ethical concepts of later cultural epochs from those of earlier epochs. The confusion arises because as natural scientists we already have the facts before us and after ward investigate them cognitively, while for the ethical action we must ourselves first create the facts that we cognize afterwards. In the evolutionary process of the ethical world order, we accomplish something that, on a lower level, is accomplished by nature. We alter something perceptible. Thus, initially, the ethical norm cannot be cognized like a natural law. Rather, it must be created. Only once it is present can it become the object of cognition. ' (Rudolf Steiner . Philosophy of freedom).
Steiner's views on the source of moral impulses , and the history of ethics , could be seen as opposing in all aspects that of Kant; Moral impulses derived from reality , through moral imagination , in a process of selecting specific facts, perceptions (perceptions that one become conscious of , whether sensual or cognitive) and experiences from a totality , and make them the ground for moral imaginations. reasoning is not an objective, sterile process , it is affected and depend on the facts and perceptions which the individual see relevant as the ground for his moral imagination.
each human being , as an individual , create its own ground of moral judgement and behavior , by his moral imagination , and it's legitimacy could not be contradicted on the ground of 'pure reason' , that was already shown to be subjective.
the dynamic process , that includes countless ways in which individual morality is affected from one another, and inspired by religion , science , ethnic , political and cultural aspects, is the process that Steiner refer to as the creating of a 'natural law in a higher order' , but that nevertheless , we as its creators , could only reflect upon in a certain level , since we change today the reality that will become the ground of ours tomorrow moral imaginations.
what played a decisive role in the infusion of Kant's morality with western civilization is the dominance and efficiency of scientific development, that become able , by the theory of evolution, to also give a reasonable answer to questions that were before under the domain of the unknown, subject of faith.
Darwinism inspired people to regard themselves as members of a specie , and as such , to the notion that there are moral rules that are derived directly from out of our natural, enhanced abilities of cognition.
the modern secular thought took Kant's deduction of god from the moral call a little further, to regard god as a by-product of that enhanced cognition ,that through the coincidences of evolution made our specie the rulers of the earth.
but although we share some of the same traits with the animal kingdom , we are excluded from nature , by the fact that our moral conduction ,reflected as the ethical history of humanity , changes reality in a way that we create a higher law , original and new , through it. the fact that the historical ethical course of humanity belong to humanity as a whole , does not mean that we can look at the development of ethics as the result of our nature as a biological specie. looking at humanity as a specie does not infer from the peculiar traits of humanity. on the contrary , every trait of human beings lead us to look at each human being as an individual , a one kind. western culture hold individuality at high value , and rightly so , but in our time it mainly does so regarding the less essential attributes , the one's that become apparent through the personality. in the essential level ,of morality ,freedom , and ideals , western scientific mindset prefers to look at humanity as a specie , and by embedding this mindset in humanity, is looking to change human altitude toward moral matters to make it more pro -survival , in the spirit of natural selection. morality , as a human higher law , could be seen as a dialogue between the divine and the earthly within the human essence , that constitute both, and in this perspective , Kant was not totally wrong in ascribing this moral judgments in connection with the divine.
but by detaching this moral judgments from the field of experience within time and space , that is , from a particular human being , it exclude from morality everything that makes it the divine part of a human being, his individual , conscious , being in time :the freedom of one to choose what right from the totality of his world of ideas and experiences, , and the creativity to intertwine those into a meaningful connection with reality. Kant made a tool , an instrument , from human beings , that may control their receptiveness and will to respond to the divine call , but have no active part in forming it.
The logic of the adherents of "scientific" Kantiasm ,even if not well formulated as actual theory , implies to follow:
Since we were able to reveal , through scientific methods , the 'reason' of ourselves , our origin , if you wish , through the theory of evolution , and since we were also able to establish a set of rules that emanates from this reasoning faculty , - our cognition , or brain, that is internalization of nature's own 'mechanism' of reasoning ,it is probable that from this point in time , we ought to try to conduct our moral behavior in accordance with the two combined - reasoning within the limits of natural science.
The part of reasoning was formulated neatly by Kant , with his untimely , universal rules called 'the categorical imperatives'. those should be merged with what science can tell us about what we are and how we constituted , and finally , become the main inspiration for moral judgments among the 'specie' of humanity , to actually make it effective.
According to this line of thought , the reason why we have stories that are clearly unmoral in the canon of our monotheistic religions is because reasoning , as become known to us through the unquestionable tools of science , was not at our disposal at that time.
It become mature in the age of Kant , and found it's groom in the form of science, which led to the final realization of our source and place in the world.
One can imagine than , that the direct divine Revelations of ancient times , was replaced by the not less divine , according to Kant , faculty of reasoning, which strikes us as a thunder , whenever our natural inclinations prevail :
" Duty! Thou sublime great name that contains nothing pleasurable to bid for our favour, but demand submission, proclaiming a law in presence of which all inclinations are silenced, although they may secretly offer resistance.."(critique of practical reason)
According to this inspiration, for someone who find substantiality in the spiritual history of western civilization , the torch had passed from the divine to the human , and we become the sole responsible for our future.
This brings forth the question - is it relevant to find correspondence between the ethical history of ancient times and that of our own time?
After all, if the divine reasoning had submerged itself and become conscious individual property , in our contemporary humanity , it must have some connection , not in a superficial, psychological or metaphorical sense , but a kind of internalization of the moral quintessence of the monotheistic religions - 'Ur narratives', in our contemporary humanity.
Is it not our duty to search for this connection , that will bring meaning into the time we live in now? for this is the true meaning of temporality - not pointing to the eternal through a set of abstract rules , but pointing toward the search for meaning, that will make of the temporality a path that makes sense. not idealizing some past society or civilization , like ancient Athens , but striving to follow in the present the other great ideal from Greek times , inscribed in the entrance to the oracle temple in Delphi :
'Know thyself'
Gilad observe that Jews have problem with this sense of temporality ,which effects their morality. when temporality is termed in connection with meaning , we can say that all of humanity have moral difficulties connected with the sense of temporality. the specific coloring , or impulse , that jews give to this problem, is connected with the story of this people , and it will be discussed later on, along with the cardinal question of finding meaning and connection between contemporary humanity , and the religious past of western civilization.
As was concluded earlier , moral universalism and humanism can not find means to address the question of the spiritual development of humanity , and the monotheistic religions within this context. These world views can be positioned at the end of a processes that started thousands of years ago , with the emergence of Greek civilization, with it's general theme being the increasing separation of the human soul from the outside world. This process consolidated in the Kantian system of thought , but it went on further in the thinkers , and more so in the actual embodiment of its conclusions , in the modern western world.
In a romantic , intuitive way , the separation of the human soul from the outside world (nature) , is a well known fact, partly because the feeling of separation , even alienation , from the outside world is a fundamental characteristic of the modern human being, and have been expressed both philosophically and culturally .
Rudolf Steiner put forth the notion that this separation is tied together with the evolution of thought life.
In his book "Riddles of philosophy", Steiner observes distinct phases in the relationships between the human soul and the act of thinking ,with the overall theme of the increasing separation between the human soul and the world outside . This came to a certain peak in Kantianism , and went further to deny the very existence of such a thing called 'soul' . on the opposite side of this time line , i.e before Greek civilization , Steiner hints to a totally different setup of human soul life, in which pictures and symbols are experienced as the mediators of the spiritual processes of the world:
"For the thought habits of our time it seems acceptable to imagine that man in archaic times had observed natural elements—wind and weather, the growth of seeds, the course of the stars—and then poetically invented spiritual beings as the active creators of these events. It is, however, far from the contemporary mode of thinking to recognise the possibility that man in older times experienced those pictures as he later experienced thought, that is, as an inner reality of his soul life."
this could elucidate the somewhat far-fetched way in which Steiner describe the way souls in the following epoch experienced thought :
"The ancient Greek's experience of thought is comparable to our experience of a perception, to our experience of “red” or “yellow.” Just as we today attribute a color or tone percept to a “thing”, so the ancient Greek perceives thought in the world of things and as adhering to them."
this process of separation of the human soul from the outside world is stretched between this two poles - ancient Greece and the age of enlightenment :
"in the first epoch (pre-socratic to the Christ event , with its peak in Plato and Aristotle), the human soul begins to detach itself from the experienced external world and to develop a knowledge concerned with the inner life of the soul. this independent soul life finds it's power in the awakening thought element. in the forth period a picture of nature emerges that has detached itself in turn from the inner soul life. the tendency arises to think of nature in such a way that nothing is allowed to be mixed into its conception that has been derived from the soul and not exclusively from nature itself. thus , the soul is , in this period, expelled from nature, and with its inner experiences confined to its subjective world. ......it could not find in itself anything to point to a world in which this soul could have its roots with its true being. for in the picture of nature it cannot find any trace of itself." (Rudolf Steiner, riddles of philosophy)
Between this poles stand the Christ event , that took place in Palestine , and from there emanated , first through the sphere of feeling , and later into the realm of thought life , stimulating the attempts of early and late medieval thinkers to create a synthesis between the world of reasoning and logic, through the heritage of Plato and Aristotle, , with the world of the divine , and its manifestation in Christ Jesus.
more important , and concealed from the eyes of many, is the kinship between what emanated to the world through the life of Jesus , and the Christ event , with the human ego. this human ego , referred to as the human soul in the following segment , which sums up Steiner theory regarding the evolution of thought :
"The evolution of thought life has proceeded through four epochs. In the first, thought is experienced as a perception coming from without. In this phase the human soul finds its self-dependence through the thought process. In the second period, thought had exhausted its power in this direction. The soul now becomes stronger in the experience of its own entity. Thought itself now lives more in the background and blends into self knowledge. It can no longer be considered as if it were an external perception. The soul becomes used to experiencing it as its own product. It must arrive at the question of what this product of inner soul activity has to do with an external world. The third period passes in the light of this question. The philosophers develop a cognitive life that tests thought itself with regard to its inner power. The philosophical strength of the period manifests itself as a life in the element of thought as such, as a power to work through thought in its own essence. In the course of this epoch the philosophical life increases in its ability to master the element of thought. At the beginning of the fourth period the cognitive self-consciousness, on the basis of its thought possession, proceeds to form a philosophical world picture. This picture is now challenged by a picture of nature that refuses to accept any element of this self-consciousness. The self-conscious soul, confronted with this nature picture, feels as its fundamental question, “How do I gain a world picture in which both the inner world with its true essence and the external nature are securely rooted at the same time?” The impulse caused by this question dominates the philosophical evolution from the beginning of the fourth period; the philosophers themselves may be more or less aware of that fact. This is also the most important impulse of the philosophical life of the present age."
Toward the end of his review, Steiner also attempt to reveal what makes the scientific world view so appealing to his generation. this was a century ago , and what he had to say about Pragmatism could reveal also some of the hidden threads behind the nobel intentions generally conceived of the term 'Humanism':
"In appraising the situation of the development of modern world conception thus characterised, one finds as the most outstanding feature the pressure that the mode of thought of natural science has exerted on the minds of people ever since it attained its full stature. One recognises as the reason for this pressure the fruitfulness, the efficiency of this mode of thinking. An affirmation of this is to be found in the work of a natural scientist like T. H. Huxley (1825-95). He does not believe that one could find anything in the knowledge of natural science that would answer the last questions concerning the human soul. But he is convinced that our search for knowledge must confine itself to the limits of the mode of conception of natural science and we must admit that man simply has no means by which to acquire a knowledge of what lies behind nature. The result of this opinion is that natural science contains no insight concerning man's highest hopes for knowledge, but it allows him to feel that in this mode of conception the investigation is placed on secure ground. One should, therefore, abandon all concern for everything that does not lie within the realm of natural science, or one should consider it as a matter of belief. The effect of this pressure caused by the method of natural science is clearly expressed in a thought current called Pragmatism that appeared at the turn of the century and intended to place all striving for truth on a secure basis. The name “Pragmatism” goes back to an essay that Charles Peirce published in the American journal, Popular Science, in 1878. The most influential representatives of this mode of conception are William James (1842-1910) in America and F. C. Schiller (1864-1937) in England, who uses the word “Humanism.”
As a complimentary to what was the initial source of the term 'Humanism' , here is the current definition from Wikipedia :
"Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. The meaning of the term humanism has fluctuated according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it.[1] The term was coined by theologian Friedrich Niethammer at the beginning of the 19th century. Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of human freedom and progress.In modern times, humanist movements are typically non-religious movements aligned with secularism, and today humanism typically refers to a nontheistic life stance centred on human agency and looking to science rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world.[2][3]" Wikepedia
The inability of scientific worldview to address the question of death , is Reflected in the way Humanists must see the future of the human kind , And which already starts to take shape in the technological aspirations of Modern thinkers . this 'bright' future , depicted by futurists like Ray Kurzweil , received the generic name ' Transhumanism'.
one can see in Humanism the outcome of what Steiner described as the fruitfulness and efficiency of the scientific mode of thinking. but how this mode of scientific thinking , as such , effects the actions , the moral behaviour of human beings?
Steiner elaborate on pragmatism:
"Pragmatism can be called disbelief in the power of thought. It denies that thinking that would remain within its own domain is capable of producing anything that can be proved as truth and knowledge justifiable by itself. Man is confronted with processes of the world and must act. To accomplish this, thinking serves him in an auxiliary function. It sums up the facts of the external world into ideas and combines them. The best ideas are those that help him to achieve the right kind of action so that he can attain his purpose in accordance with the facts of the world. These ideas man recognises as his truth. Will is the ruler of man's relation to the world, not thinking. James deals with this matter in his book, 'The Will to Believe'. The will determines life; this is its undeniable right. Therefore, will is also justified in influencing thought. It is, to be sure, not to exert its influence in determining what the facts are in a particular case; here the intellect is to follow the facts themselves. But it will influence the understanding and interpretation of reality as a whole. “If our scientific knowledge extended as far as to the end of things, we might be able to live by science alone. But since it only dimly lights up the edges of the dark continent that we call the universe, and since we must form, at our own risk, some sort of thought of this universe to which we belong with our lives, we shall be justified if we form such thoughts as agree with our nature—thoughts that enable us to act, hope and live.”"
"Act , Hope and Live": - these are the possible acts for human beings living within the the self restricting boundaries of scientific world view : first and for most comes Acting , as kind of a reflex corresponds to outer circumstances, or prescribed moral agenda, followed by the hope that our acts are in line with a world we can't really know (the things in themselves) , and mostly - live.
Live?
doesn't it our default state , part of our being ,much like it's dark counterpart? or maybe this imply to a more loose , nihilistic frame of mind , unworried about all the things that we are not suppose to think of.. which indeed is enthusiastically practiced by many in our contemporary western civilization.
this is the demarcating and nourishing the sacredness of natural life as the aim of human conduction. it is the obliteration of the concept of death from human cognition , and at the same time the obliteration of the human ego , and it's immortality , from the scope of human interest. it is also a narration of the world of feelings into what this philosopher sees as the only justifiable Representative of this spectrum - hope . the mocking style used earlier again this hope is unjustified , since scientific worldview and methods , upon which all contemporary secular life is built , does give the impression of knowing the world , and to a large extent that it truth.
but what kind of truth we get from it? this one specific feeling , hope , brought into this discussion in a mysterious way through its connection with truth , was also discussed by Steiner in connection with Goethe's Pandora poem , in his essay 'the mission of truth' ( Metamporhoses of the soul ,paths of experience, vol. 1) :
"Inasmuch as truth is acquired by thinking, we must realize very clearly that there are two kinds of truth. First we have the truth that comes from observing the world of Nature around us and investigating it bit by bit in order to discover its truths, laws and wisdom. When we contemplate the whole range of our experience of the world in this way, we come to the kind of truth that can be called the truth derived from “Reflective” Thinking — we first observe the world and then think about our findings......There are also other truths. These cannot be gained by reflective thought, but only by going beyond everything that can be learnt from the outer world. In ordinary life we can see at once that when a man constructs a tool or some other instrument, he has to formulate laws that are not part of the outer world. For example, no-one could learn from the outer world how to construct a clock, for the laws of Nature are not so arranged as to provide for the appearance of clocks as a natural product. That is a second kind of truth: we come to it by thinking out something not given to us by observation or experience of the outer world. Hence there are these two kinds of truth, and they must be kept strictly apart, one derived from reflective thought and the other from “Creative” Thought."
this kind of creativity that comes into expression in re-arranging the material natural laws , be it mechanical or biological , in a new way , is the main engine of technological progression , and is venerated by many as the ultimate tool for human progression. but there is still another kind of creative truth , that could not be 'put to the test' in the decisive way of the first one. It have to be lived , and the insights gained from this is a process of the soul and spirit. to this creative sphere belong the path of human self knowledge , the humanities and the social sciences. We can therefore indicate another complete sphere of truth with the same division – reflective thought of humanity , mainly concerning history and how human essence is reflected by it , and creative thoughts about humanity and individual human beings, it's essence and the way to move forward. , in this sphere ,the way in which individuals contribute and influence the path of progress is much more varied ,and the matters to be observed are much more ambiguous. ones world view stems from his soul , the peculiar way that he decipher the world and himself in it , and the ability of affirming or refuting his presuppositions is much less feasible than in the natural sciences. in a way , the spiritual truths tends to be acquired in the opposite way than the materialistic ones - in the last an observation lead to conviction (i will built my imaginary clock and will be convinced of the validity of my ideas by experiment), while spiritual convictions, or world view tendencies ,comes first , and through acting according to this convictions over time , one can try to explore : how the 'feedbacks' coming from the world correspond to the initial thoughts that led to actions, and how i myself changed from living according to the principles that i found important.
In a personal level, this kind of activity is difficult , because it requires sincerity and integrity, let alone the ability to question the most fundamental convictions one have about the world. It is much easier when it comes to worldviews that were adopted and practiced collectively by large groups of people. this is because one can communicate with other about their shared experiences . former citizen of the communist regime should have much better perspective about the effect of Marxist philosophy on the human spirit, life and actions , than someone who knows it only philosophically. thus revisionism in the real sense is the process of continuous examination of one world view and principles , in the light of the experience of reality. within the scope of revisionism , past actions should be reflected upon , because this allow an insight into the change , that only the subject is aware of , between his current world of ideas and the ones he had in the past.
revisionism in the national level , in principle , strive toward the same goal as the individual revision: to understand the development of the people , what was their past tasks and challenges , how those changed the people to what they are in the present , and what can be the right ways the confront present challenges , on the base of self knowledge.
so we can distinguish two kinds of creative thought: the first observe , manipulate , and re-arrange the rules of the material world , to create something new for the beneficial use of humankind - this is technological creativity.
the other subject of observation is human essence as singular, and as part of society. since human beings are complex creatures , with many inner, hidden traits and qualities, creativity of this kind expands in time , to creatively understand the past , and inside , toward a creative self knowledge. it also expand to the future , with the objective of creating a viable and sustainable social and political structures , that will support all this complexities of human beings. in this sense , the objective of all the social sciences is to provide the right envelope , and support , that will allow the individual to freely pursue his own path through nurturing the totality of the individual's traits , like creativity , emotions and intellect. but , unlike in the field of natural sciences , tests and failures in the field of social experiments , based on erroneous understanding of human essence , can lead to grave results, as we seen in the history of the 20th century.
that is because unlike the creative thought that re-arrange natures laws to built something new , re arranging social fabric , suppose to make it fit better to something that we are not quite clearly understand - ourselves. the subjugation of this stream of creativity to the other stream - that of technology ,present danger to human ability to exercise , and be inspired , by this kind of creativity, when it emanates from self knowledge that contradicts the assumptions of science.
Truth derived from reflective thinking have , according to Steiner , deadening effect on the human soul , by it's lack of inner intervention , or creativity. one can stand at owe before the wisdom of nature , reflected in its phenomena , but it is all there also without the inspector, it is a product of the past. on the other hand , truth that derived from "creative thought" belongs to the future, and involves creative , uncertain acts that put the human being in a position of risk and fame , tears and blood , belief and struggle. Prometheus and Epimetheus , the two main characters of Goethe's Pandora , are a symbolic Representatives of this two kinds of truths :
"On the side of Prometheus, the stage is loaded with tools and implements constructed by man. In all these, human energies have been at work, but in a certain sense it is all rough and unready. On the side of Epimetheus, the other Titan, there is a complete contrast. Here everything is perfectly finished; we see not so much what man creates, but a bringing together of what Nature has already produced...
...On the side of Epimetheus, the reflective thinker, we see the heritage of the past, brought into symmetrical order by himself. And because he is a reflective thinker, we see in the background a beautiful landscape which gives its own special pleasure to the human eye. Epimetheus now comes forward and discloses his individual character. He explains that he is there to experience the past, and to reflect upon past occurrences and the visible world. But in his speech he reveals the dissatisfaction that this kind of attitude can at times call forth in the soul. He feels hardly any difference between day and night. In brief, the figure of Epimetheus shows us reflective thinking in its most extreme form. Then Prometheus comes forward carrying a torch and emerging from the darkness of night. Among his followers are smiths; they set to work on the man-made objects that are lying around, while Prometheus makes a remarkable statement that will not be misunderstood if we are alive to Goethe's meaning. The smiths extol productivity and welcome the fact that in the course of production many things have to be destroyed. In a one-sided way they extol fire. A man who is an all-round reflective thinker will not praise one thing at the expense of another. He casts his eye over the whole. Prometheus, however, says at once:
"In partiality let the active man
Find his pleasure"
He extols precisely the fact that to be active entails the acceptance of limitations. In Nature, the right is established when the wrong destroys itself. But to the smiths Prometheus says: Carry on doing whatever can be done. He is the creative man; he emerges with his torch from the darkness of night in order to show how from the depths of his soul the truth gained by his creative thinking comes forth. Unlike Epimetheus, he is far from a dreamlike feeling that night and day are all one. Nor does he experience the world as a dream. For his soul has been at work, and in its own dark night it has grasped the thoughts which now emerge from it. They are no dreams, but truths for which the soul has bled. By this means the soul advances into the world and gains release from itself; but at the same time it incurs the danger of losing itself. This does not yet apply to Prometheus himself, but when a man introduces one-sideness into the world, the danger appears among his descendants. Phileros, the son of Prometheus, is already inclined to love ,cherish and enjoy the products of creative work, while his father Prometheus is still immersed in the stream of life's creative power. In Phileros we are shown the power of creative thinking developed in a one-sided way. He rushes out into life, not knowing where to search for enjoyment. Prometheus cannot pass on to his son his own fruitfully creative strength, and so Phileros appears incomprehensible to Epimetheus, who out of his own rich experience would like to counsel him on his headlong career. We are then magnificently shown what mere reflective thinking involves. This is connected with the myth that Zeus, having fettered Prometheus to the rock, imposes Pandora, the all-gifted, on mankind..
...Most beautiful and gifted she approached The amazed watcher, moving with noble grace,Her gracious look inquiring whether I, Like to my sterner brother, would repel her, But all too strongly were my heart-beats stirred, With sense bemused my charming bride I welcomed. Towards the mysterious dowry then I turned, The earthen vessel, tall and shapely, stood Close-sealed ..."
Prometheus had warned his brother against this gift from the gods. But Epimetheus, with his different character, accepts the gift, and when the earthen vessel is opened, all the afflictions that can befall mankind come pouring out. Only one thing is left in the vessel — Hope.
Who, then, is Pandora and what does she signify? Truly a mystery of the soul is concealed in her. The fruits of reflective thinking are dead products, an abstract reflection of the mechanical thoughts forged by Hephaestus. This wisdom is powerless in the face of the universally creative wisdom from which the world has been born. What can this abstract reflection give to mankind? We have seen how this kind of truth can be sterile and can lay waste the soul, and we can understand how all the afflictions that fall on mankind come pouring out of Pandora's vessel.
In Pandora we have to see truth without the powers of creativity, the truth of reflective thinking, a truth which builds up a mechanized thought-picture in the midst of the world's creative life. For the mere reflective thinker only one thing remains. While the creative thinker unites his Ego with the future and gets free from himself, the reflective thinker can look to the future only with hope, for he has no part in shaping it. He can only hope that things will happen.
Goethe shows his deep comprehension of the myth by endowing the marriage of Epimetheus and Pandora with two children: Elpore (Hope) and Epimeleia (Care), who safeguards existing things. In fact, man has in his soul two offspring of dead, abstract, mechanically conceived truth. This kind of truth is unfruitful and cannot influence the future; it can only reflect what is already there. It leaves a man with nothing but the hope that what is true will duly come to pass. This is represented by Goethe with splendid realism in the figure of Elpore, who, if someone asks her whether this or that is going to happen, always gives the same answer, yes, yes. If a Promethean man were to stand before the world and speak of the future, he would say: “I hope for nothing. With my own forces I will shape the future.” But a reflective thinker can only reflect on the past and hope for the future; thus Elpore, when asked whether this or that will happen, replies always, yes, yes. We hear it again and again. In this way a daughter of reflective thinking is admirably characterized and her sterility is indicated. The other daughter of this reflective thinking, Epimeleia, is she who cares for existing things. She sets them all in symmetrical order and can add nothing from her own resources. But all things which fail to develop are increasingly liable to destruction; hence we see how anxiety about them continually mounts, and how through mere reflective thinking a destructive element finds its way into the world. This is wonderfully well indicated by Goethe when he makes Phileros fall in love with Epimeleia. We see him, burnt up with jealousy, pursuing Epimeleia, until she takes refuge from him with the Titan brothers. Strife and dissension come simultaneously on to the scene. Epimeleia complains that the person she loves is the very one to seek her life."
The striving to remain within what is "safe" to say about the world, , that comes only from reflective truth , had a tremendous influence on the ability of contemporary humanity to create the necessary cognitive platform that will be able to embrace and carry the ego , it's thinking activity , and the world , into the future.
by our enchantment with the manifestations of our technological advancements , humanities enthusiasm for "creative" truth in the realm of the material , was not followed with the striving to deliver the same creative truth in the realm of the humanities. the one sidedness of looking only for reflective truth come on the expanse of creative truth in the realm of the spirit, and the results are first and foremost visible in the cultural realm.
the striving to connect the human ego , through thinking , with the reality of the world was thus abandoned , and the will took the leading role:
"According to this conception ( pragmatism) , our thought has no life that could possibly concentrate and deepen in itself and, in Hegel's sense, for example, penetrate to the source of existence. It merely emerges in the human soul to serve the ego when it takes an active part in the world with its will and life. Pragmatism deprives thought of the power it possessed from the rise of the Greek world conception. Knowledge is thus made into a product of the human will. In the last analysis, it can no longer be the element into which man plunges in order to find himself in his true nature. The self-conscious ego no longer penetrates into its own entity with the power of thinking. It loses itself in the dark recesses of the will in which thought sheds no light on anything except the aims of life. But these, as such, do not spring from thought. The power exerted by external facts on man has become excessively strong. The conscious ability to find a light in the inner life of thought that could illumine the last questions of existence has reached the zero point. In pragmatism, the development of modern philosophy falls shortest of what the spirit of this development really demands: that man may find himself as a thinking and self-conscious ego in the depths of the world in which this ego feels itself as deeply connected with the well-spring of existence, as the Greek truth-seeker did through his perceived thought. That the spirit of modern times demands this becomes especially clear through pragmatism. It places man in the focal point of his world picture. In man, it was to be seen how reality rules in existence. Thus, the chief question was directed toward the element in which the self-conscious ego rests. But the power of thought was not sufficient to carry light into this element. Thought remained behind in the upper layers of the soul when the ego wanted to take the path into its own depth."
the inability of humanity to deepen thinking into the realm of the ego and its genuine connections with the world is the axis that around it spins many of the events that come to stage in our time. it will be argued here , that there are spiritual laws as there are physical laws , and that in this very unique time of human history we are in a position that we have the tools ( developed thought and egohood ) to decipher what and how the events of past time are connected with what we are experiencing today in global scale , on the cognitive/spiritual level.
in the final chapter of this book (Riddles of Philosophy) , where Steiner depict the essentials of Anthroposophy, he make this remark :
"Philosophy leads by it's own paths to the insight that it must pass from a study of the world to an experience of it, because mere reflection cannot bring a satisfactory solution to all the riddles of life"
this demand had proved to be a prophetic one. whether we willed it or not , cardinal questions reveal themselves through the events of our global , contemporary humanity , and through the forms of global communication, we are "invited" to plunge into experiencing reality, both of our inner nature and the outer world that corresponds to what we have made .
this kind of experiencing , in the spiritual\universal realm, as a student of Anthroposophy , and in the national/folk sphere , as an Israeli Jew, is what led me to the thoughts that will be expressed here.
like in the field of art , my main vocation , it felt like achieving objectivity in a totally subjective way, and by that, i could relate to Steiner's words on this experience:
"what can lead to thoughts capable of forming a world conception in the soul must be so formed as if it were the soul's own invention, and the soul must search for the possibility of justifying the validity of its own creation".