KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA32 (Muller)

Response 17 (to C44, by McCarthy, on R Steiner's view)

HOW COMPREHENSIVE IS
STEINER'S EPISTEMOLOGY ?
by Herbert FJ Müller
19 July 2001, posted 11 September 2001

[1]
As I understand Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophy, he wanted to provide a unified background for thinking, presumably in an effort to counteract the fragmentation resulting from the prevalent exclusively-objectivist (or else dualist) trend in science around 1900. He did this largely with the help of intuitive and mystical insights. A conceptual unification of spiritual needs with specific scientific ones is still a prominent question of our time. But I have not found a discussion of his epistemology in reference works, nor on the internet. Maurice McCarthy's presentation thus fills a gap.

[2]
He suggests <6> that Steiner's epistemology has a constructivist orientation, with an emphasis on creative conception. But some of the particular assumptions which he describes in C44 would appear to contradict this, at least regarding zero-derivation (0-D) of mental (ie., mind-nature) structures, which are a chief aspect of constructivism. Among others, the statements <3> that objects must be pre-supposed, and <7> that being is a brute fact, rather than resulting from assertion, are not compatible with it. They imply an assumption of mind-independently pre-fabricated reality, already structured prior to cognition, the opposite of the 0-D point of view.

[3]
MM writes <10g> that Steiner's epistemological position is adequate for dealing with all scientific questions. What evidence is there for or against this claim ? For instance, how can it deal with the mind-brain question ? With the conceptual problems of particle physics ? With the relation of spiritual to scientific needs ? So far it seems to me that a thorough 0-D method can do better, but this question may perhaps be more fruitfully discussed considering specific examples or questions, if you are interested.

----------------------------

Herbert FJ Muller