page contents

The Philosophy Of Freedom


"The purpose of The Philosophy Of Freedom is to lay the foundations of ethical individualism and of a social and political life." Rudolf Steiner

Ethical individualism is a humanist world-view that recognizes that the most cherished human dignity is to live according to one's own freely chosen values.

Questions or Comments about The Philosophy Of Freedom?

You need to be a member of The Philosophy Of Freedom to add comments!

Join The Philosophy Of Freedom


We understand that the economic system is rigged to favor an economic oligarchy. The American Dream must be restored so that each person has a fair chance to achieve their own dreams.

We understand that the political system is rigged to favor a political oligarchy. Democracy must be restored so that elected officials represent the people.

The way you “take on the enormous economic and political power of the billionaire class” and “fight for a progressive economic agenda that creates jobs, raises wages, protects the environment and provides healthcare for all” is with a political party. (quoted text is Bernie Sanders)

Political party: The purpose of a political party is to nominate candidates for public office and to get as many of them elected as possible. Once elected, these officials work to achieve the goals of the party agenda.

The Democratic Party: The Democratic Party has no interest in a peoples revolution to overthrow the economic and political oligarchy.

Why not just reform the Democratic party?: The Democratic Party is corrupt. It cannot be reformed by the people because the nomination process is not democratic and even when a progressive candidate is elected to office it is not long before they are corrupted by the party establishment.

Why a 3rd Party?: Getting on the general election ballot is a two step process. First you win your party's nomination and then you run in the GE. The Democratic Party is blocking progressive candidates from getting on the GE ballot. A progressive party will nominate and put progressive candidates on the GE ballot to present our agenda and offer the voters a choice. In addition, once elected, our candidates will not be compromised by their party, but instead supported to achieve the progressive goals of the parties agenda.

The “lesser of two evils”: The Democratic Party takes the progressive vote for granted and will not change because of their confidence in the fear-based “lesser of two evils” argument. They will only adopt our agenda when they have to earn our vote. The truth is there really can be no “lesser of two evils” argument in a revolution that opposes the existing system as a whole.


Why did Bernie run as a Democrat?: When he decided to run, even Bernie Sanders believed a 3rd party or independent candidate could not win. "If we were serious about winning this election, which is always my intention from day one, I thought we could and I hope that we will. I had to do it within the Democratic primary caucus process." -Bernie Sanders

The Bernie Sander's campaign proved a 3rd party can win: Forget everything you know about 3rd party chances to win. Bernie's successful campaign has changed everything. The reason you run as a candidate on a major political party is for campaign funding and media exposure. Bernie proved that you can be successful with small contributions and social media even when the MSM blacks you out.

We don't have time: We need a candidate on this years general election ballot to sustain the revolution's momentum. We need to look at existing parties that will be on the 2016 ballot, like the Green Party.

Sustaining the momentum: The critical factor that may determine the life or death of the revolution will be whether the momentum can continue on to the GE with Bernie Sanders or without him.

Will Bernie break his pledge?: Bernie is everyone's first choice, but he has pledged to support Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination. If he breaks his pledge the Democrats and MSM will vilify his greatest assets; trust and honesty. If Bernie does decide to run, yippee, we jump on the bandwagon, but we can't idly wait to find out.

Jill Stein reaches out to Bernie Sanders: Jill Stein, who is seeking the Green Party nomination for President, has reached out to Senator Bernie Sanders in a letter following the NY primary to discuss ways they and their campaigns could work together to win a progressive political revolution in the United States. Jill Stein has a Power to the People Plan.

The Green Party would need to be reformed: Who is the Green Party? You and I are the Green Party if we join and participate. The Green Party believes in democracy so it can be reformed by the people. Changes will need to be made to make it into a national party that can win elections. We may not have enough time to reform the Green Party now, or Bernie and Jill will work together, or perhaps we could urge Jill to adopt the People's Summit Platform to broaden its appeal.

Objective: Promote the idea that the campaign for a progressive agenda must continue on into the general election.

Specific goal - GE debates: Having a challenging goal rallies the activists. The goal is to reach 15% presidential polling and be on enough state ballots to qualify our candidate to face Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the general election debates. Jill Stein has joined others in a lawsuit to ease these requirements.

Social media campaign: We have learned that a campaign, even when blacked-out by MSM, can be driven through social media. It does not take many people to launch and sustain a social media campaign that confirms what people are already thinking.

Who will act?: The Berners are absorbed in the primary while the Greens could look like they are trying to steal Bernie's momentum. An outside group could help bridge the two movements, as we would also support future Green Party reform to become a competitive national party.


Theme: Something like, “After the Democratic primary is over we must be sure that the fight continues onward to the general election with Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein.” This encourages Bernie Sanders to run in the GE, and if not, we support Jill Stein. This could actually pressure Bernie to run in the GE!


Twitter hashtag: #BernieOrJill

I have secured @BernieOrJill and and would turn them over to an activist group.

The danger: There are two serious dangers to the revolution if Bernie loses the Democratic nomination.
1. Join #ImWithHer and support oligarchy.
2. Join #BernieOrBust and quit fighting or become anarchists.

The 3rd option is #BernieOrJill to carry the fight into the GE. This is the option that needs to be promoted right now as people are starting to become angry and discouraged after the New York primary results. More will be dropping out each day if there is no Plan B to keep hope alive.

The opportunity: We all realize we are at a critical moment in history offering a chance for change. If we hesitate or wait to see what happens we may miss a once in a lifetime opportunity to restore Democracy and to make sure each person has a fair chance of achieving their own American Dream.


Important Dates:
End of Democratic Primaries June 7
The Peoples Summit June 17–19
Democratic Party Convention July 25–28
Green Party Convention August 4–7    
(crosspost at

UPDATE: I launched a petition asking Bernie to support Jill Stein and pass the flag. The idea of a petition is that if a lot of people sign it the person considers it. It is too early for this petition to gain support, but my concern is that we are headed for BernieOrBust followed by eventual violence.

There is a short term role of Jill Stein to carry the flag through this election and try to get into the presidential debate. Then new candidates and a new expanded Green Party alliance continues on. Maybe Bernie reappears as the candidate in 2020.

Instead, the Bernie movement will try to reform the Democratic Party. The Clinton Democratic Party will be reformed after the election, but the reformation will be to purge it of progressives. We are headed for Bernie or Bust and the revolution going dormant again. Unfortunately, its next appearance will likely be in the streets, perhaps protesting against Hillary's new war with Iran. There will be a crackdown on the street "terrorists" which will just move us closer to being a police state. I hope it turns out different.

"US voters must be offered a better choice on the November ballot than the unpopular Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. If Bernie Sanders is not running, we must fight onward with Jill Stein to take on Clinton and Trump in the presidential debates. By remaining united we can qualify Jill for the debates to make sure our progressive voices are not silenced, but continue to be heard in the 2016 presidential campaign. We will also be building a party for the 99% by merging the Bernie Sanders movement with the Green Party."

Read more…

The opening sentence of Steiner's 1894 Die Philosophie der Freiheit was (English) "IS man free in action and thought, or is he bound by an iron necessity?" In later editions this line was changed to, "IS man in his thinking and acting a spiritually free being, or is he compelled by the iron necessity of natural laws?"

We find this original opening line, "IS man free in action and thought, or is he bound by an iron necessity?" as you would expect in the first English translation, 1916, by Prof. and Mrs. R. F. Alfred Hoernlé. Alfred Hoernlé was an accomplished scholar and philosopher of Steiner's time, a highly qualified translator and was immersed in the issues discussed in the book. Steiner was alive at that time and sanctioned this translation.

It has been assumed that Steiner changed this line as part of the 1918 revisions. It was a significant revision because it revises the book to begin with a theosophy term, "spiritual being". But Steiner said this book has no obvious reference to theosophy. How can you begin a book for the science community with the term "spiritual being"?

If Steiner made the change in 1918, you would expect to find this change in the 1922 Hoernle translation that was revised by Hoernle  to include Steiner's 1918 revisions.

But surprisingly this change is not to be found. What you find in the 1922 is the original line. "IS man free in action and thought, or is he bound by an iron necessity?"

When I saw that Hoernle didn't revise the line I thought perhaps he did a sloppy job and missed the revision. But I have been comparing the 1922 Hoernle with the 1916 Hoernle, which is the same except for the 1918 revisions. What I found was that the 1922 was meticulously done and includes many minor grammar corrections of the 1916 on each page, no way  Hoernle missed this major revision.

This would indicate the line change was not part of Steiner's 1918 revisions. When did this line change first appear?

We find its first appearance in the 1939 Hermann Poppelbaum revisions, 14 years after Steiner's passing. "IS man in his thinking and acting a spiritually free being, or is he compelled by the iron necessity of natural laws?" Who was Hermann Poppelbaum? He is a one time Director of the Anthroposophical Society who perhaps saw himself as the Pope of Steinerism. He decided to revise Hoernle's 1922 by "checking certain words and phrases from the strictly Steiner point of view." He also declared his revisions were made "only where a greater truth towards the original seemed desirable".

I have been spotting many odd revisions to the book over the years that indicate a tampering with the text to make it more "theosophical." As I continue my comparison I suspect they originate with Poppelbaum. I will be posting his revisions to Steiner's book.


1894 Steiner publishes Die Philosophie der Freiheit

1916 Prof. and Mrs. R. F. Alfred Hoernlé First English translation
IS man free in action and thought, or is he bound by an iron necessity?

1918 Steiner revises Die Philosophie der Freiheit

1922 Prof. and Mrs. R. F. Alfred Hoernlé revises his 1916 translation to include Steiner's 1918 revisions.
IS man free in action and thought, or is he bound by an iron necessity?

1925 Steiner's death

1939 Hermann Poppelbaum revisions of 1922 Hoernle  "only where a greater truth towards the original seemed desirable". It is here that the new opening line appears: 
IS man in his thinking and acting a spiritually free being, or is he compelled by the iron necessity of natural laws? 

Read more…

The Only Agreeable Moral Value In Politics Is Freedom

Rudolf Steiner said the moral value that should be the foundation of political life is freedom.

Moral Values And The Candidates Who Match Them poll identifys the moral values of supporters of each of this year’s presidential candidates.

Populist Cross-Party Alliance
If Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency I would expect her and the DNC to further rig the primary process to make sure they never again face another Bernie Sanders type anti-establishment challenge. The RNC will likely also try and block anti-establishment candidates. This could make it more important that a populist alliance become a cross-party movement in the event we are forced to go 3rd party. Whatever happens, it is obvious we want to unite as many people as possible.

What could possibly be the basis of an alliance between such extreme opposites as Bernie Sanders Progressives and Donald Trump Tea Party supporters? A poll identified the moral values of both groups. The sides agree only on their support for one value: Liberty.

This poll was discussed in a New York Times article and at the Mad Dog Democrat blog.

Moral Values Of Voters
The survey results provide a measure of the strength of current support for each of four values:

Care (empathy)
Sanders Yes
Trump No
Supporters’ belief that “morality requires caring for and protecting the vulnerable.”

Proportionality (accountability, or just deserts)
Sanders No
Trump Yes
Measured in part by favorable responses to this statement: “People who produce more should be rewarded more than those who just tried hard.” A desire for people to “reap what they sow.”

Authority (plus loyalty and sanctity)
Sanders No
Trump Yes
Includes high levels of patriotism; loyalty to one’s group; support for the police and dislike of chaotic or disordered situations; hostility toward sexual acts outside traditional heterosexual relations; reverence for the American flag.

Sanders Yes
Trump Yes
Resistance to being controlled or dominated, measured in part by approval of this statement: “Everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don’t infringe on the freedom of others.”

Socialism vs Nationalism
Even though both the Bernie Sander's and Donald Trump movements agree on similar issues, the candidates are framing them differently. While Sanders is framing his populist message in Socialism - the caring for others, Trump is framing his message in Nationalism - protecting what is yours. By choosing to frame the same issues in Socialism and Nationalism the candidates remove any chance of joining forces. Both may be destined to hitting ceilings of support and short lived political movements.

Common Populist Issues
Sanders and Trump have tapped into the frustration of those stuck on the middle and bottom rungs of the economic ladder.

  • Both reject mechanisms to limit spending on Social Security and Medicare.
  • Both reject the free trade agreements of the past two decades.
  • Both reject mechanisms to limit spending on Social Security and Medicare — and each supports his own version of “health care for all”.
  • Both reject the use of super PACs to raise large political contributions and are convinced that politicians in Washington have sold out to powerful interests that contribute huge sums to campaigns.
  • Both reject military interventionism that consumes lives and resources.

Framing Issues For Broad Support
If a candidate framed populist issues in personal freedom they would gain broader support than Sanders socialism or Trump nationalism. George Lakoff makes the following points about frames and framing:

“Communication itself comes with a frame. The elements of the Communication Frame include: A message, an audience, a messenger, a medium, images, a context, and especially, higher-level moral and conceptual frames. The choice of language is, of course, vital, but it is vital because language evokes frames — moral and conceptual frames.

Frames form a system. The system has to be built up over time. It takes a long-range effort. Most of this system development involves moral and conceptual frames, not just communicative frames. Communicative framing involves only the lowest level of framing.”

Liberty Is The Fundamental American Value
Liberty and freedom are similar words. People are, by nature, meant to live in 'freedom', and the government is to grant 'liberty' to its citizens. For the founders of the nation, liberty was the fundamental American value. Liberty remained the dominant patriotic theme for the following 150 years, even if freedom played an important role. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address began by invoking a nation ''conceived in liberty,'' but went on to resolve that it should have a ''new birth of freedom.''

Free Development Of Human Beings
''Freedom'' came into its own in the New Deal period when American values expanded to include the economic and social justice that permitted people free development as human beings. President Roosevelt proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy:

  • Freedom of speech
  • Freedom of worship
  • Freedom from want
  • Freedom from fear

The civil rights movement made ''freedom now'' its rallying cry. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. used ''freedom'' 19 times in his ''I Have a Dream'' speech. Feminists extended freedom to cover reproductive rights, while Timothy Leary spoke of the ''fifth freedom . . . the freedom to expand your own consciousness.

Corporate Freedom
President Ronald Reagan understood the power of the word ''freedom''. His second Inaugural Address mentioned freedom 14 times. But for Reagan freedom meant an absence of constraints on markets, deregulation, tax cuts and a weakening of unions. What Reagan fought for was corporate freedom.

President Bill Clinton was also a fighter for corporate freedom, though this is hotly debated. He repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, creating a permissive lending environment that contributed to the financial collapse.

Establishment politicians can be framed as valuing corporate freedom while a populist candidate as valuing personal freedom and development.

Tea Party Personal Freedom
Nearly every attempt to describe Tea Party demographics will mention anger and frustration with government infringement upon liberty and personal freedom. It is a bedrock principle for most Tea Party members. Of course corporate freedom has been framed to mean personal freedom. But the conservative love of personal freedom is an opening to reach them with a unity populist platform if it is framed as enabling more personal freedom.

The science has identified freedom to be the moral value that will appeal to all sides. Would it be possible to frame all populist issues within the fundamental American principle of freedom?  It makes sense that this framing possibility should be further examined.

Read more…

Philosophy Influences Politics

Maybe I will spend my time taking on Ayn Rand and her influence in politics by offering an alternative philosophy.

Ayn Rand’s philosophy of “selfish individualism” now dominates the thinking of the leadership of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. She claims to know the human being. Maybe I will contrast her selfish individualism with another philosophy of “ethical individualism”. Political platforms are an expression of values. The Republican platform is strongly influenced by Ayn Rand’s values. Are progressive values rooted in a different understanding of the human being?

“Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”
–Ayn Rand, 1962

“If a man strives towards sublimely great ideals, it is because such ideals are the content of his being, and to realize them brings an enjoyment compared with which the pleasure that is drawn from the satisfaction of commonplace needs is a mere nothing. Idealists delight in translating their ideals into reality.” –Rudolf Steiner, 1894

Read more…

Script Draft For Chapter 1 Introduction Video

The Philosophy Of Freedom, Chapter One Conscious Human Action

This video is an introduction to Chapter One of The Philosophy Of Freedom; Conscious Human Action.
It begins with the question, Are we free in our thought and action, or inescapably controlled by necessity?

The common belief among people is that we are free.
Freedom is implied in many of the things we say, and many of the attitudes we take.
Suppose tomorrow is a holiday.
You are considering what to do.
You can hike up a mountain or stay home and read a book.
You can fix your bike or go visit the zoo.
I appears obvious to us that we are free to determine our action, at least some of the time.

You also believe in freedom if you believe in morality.
Morality is based on free choice, the ability to choose between right and wrong.

We cannot hold people morally responsible for their actions if they are not free to make choices.
How can we justify the judgment of others unless we believe in free will.
Without free will we would be automatons who simply did whatever we were pre-programmed by nature or society to do.

Religion teaches that the Divine Creator gave free will to everyone.
Its as simple as that!
The downside of such a belief is that it is not based on knowledge.
It is faith.

Science demands more than belief.
Scientists deny free will by the fact that we are physical creatures in a physical world subject to well established natural laws.
Why would the uniformity of natural law be broken in the field of human action?
Since our action is a part of the world it is subject to the laws of cause and effect just as everything else is.
It is hard to deny that we are directed by laws of conduct when our behavior is caused by motivations, temperament, physiological processes, environmental conditions, and so on.
Religion accepts free will on faith while science rejects free will on the evidence provided by research.

But what exactly do we mean by free will?
The discussion of free will is rich and remarkable with 100's of different meanings given to freedom.
Whether freedom is even possible depends on what you mean by the word ‘free’.
Are we free when we can do whatever we wish or is freedom somehow related to quantum chance?

We can narrow down the question of freedom by asking, What is a freedom worth having?
A freedom worth having would not be vague or questionable but scientifically verifiable.
It would need to be a science of freedom that could be clearly explained and experienced.
It would be a freedom that described the advance of evolution up to the ethical individual without the need of some kind of supernatural intervention.

The purpose of The Philosophy Of Freedom is to establish a science of freedom that guides the unfoldment of free ethical individuals.
A knowledge of freedom can be used to create social and political forms that support human development and well-being.
The Philosophy Of Freedom Study Course will attempt to describe the gradual step by step development toward human freedom.

Read more…
Comments: 0

Is the exceptional state similar to witness observing?

You need to be a member of The Philosophy Of Freedom to add comments!

Join The Philosophy Of Freedom


  • Question: When Steiner in Chapter 3 talks about the exceptional point of view, is he referring to the witness observer from spiritual traditions? Just a thought I had while reading. -JS

    From the internet, after I wade through all the spiritual gibberish of energies, beyond mind, and observing truth, witness observing is:

    1. aware of very subtle emotions, impulses, feelings in your body, and behaviors
    2. notice chatter of internal dialog
    3. notice when thoughts are arising
    4. notice the idea that we could spend some time with in quiet meditation
    5. notice that your mind thinks all by itself
    6. watch the images the mind projects

    This sounds to me more like pure unthinking observation described in chapter 4. Chapter 3 is more about “thinking” observation. But we can't be sure this is different because I think witness observing has a broad meaning.

    Chapter 3, along with the other chapters, are interesting as Steiner is talking about one thing --the observation of thinking-- but as he moves along he is describing deeper states.

    3.1 I observe a table and I carry out my thinking of a table.

    The first state is to look at a table and chat to ourselves about the table. This goes on at the same time. The reason it can go on at the same time is because our attention is not focused on the table or our thought. To think requires directing our attention to become completely focused on one thing.

    3.1 Whereas the observation of things and processes, and the thinking about them, are everyday occurrences making up the continuous current of my life, the observation of the thought-process itself is an exceptional attitude to adopt.

    We enter the exceptional state when we HOLD our attention on a PAST thought or thought process. Then we enter the exceptional state of THINKING ABOUT THINKING. Then we can STUDY the thought and produce new thoughts about it. Scientists and philosophers think about their thinking all the time, but in ordinary life people don't do it that much. If you are in what Steiner calls the materialism state you don't think about your thinking.

    3.6 Whoever cannot transcend Materialism lacks the ability to throw himself into the exceptional attitude I have described.

    In the witness observing list above they speak of observing thinking as it is happening. Steiner says this is impossible, that it is a two step process. First you think about or study something which will produce new thought. Then in step 2 you direct your attention on the new thought to study that.

    Steiner is describing putting your full attention on an object, such as STUDYING a table. In the background thoughts will appear about the table. Then in step 2 you direct your attention on the background thought to STUDY the thought. By doing this and introspectively thinking about your past thought, you are in the exceptional state by entering the realm of pure thought. This is not a day dreaming state but focused reflection. As Steiner moves through chapter 3 he describes the exceptional state on deeper and deeper levels.

    • Thank you for the explanation, actually gave me some clarity. I still think is the same but the "witness observer" (internal observation/thinking) I was referring is from the self development field and it does happen after the outer observation, reaction, or activity.  But like any abstract term it does have multiple meanings. I will keep reading PoF to comprehensibly understand Steiner words. I really appreciate your time.

      • So if a mechanical engineer reflects on his thinking process to see if it is objective or if a philosopher is thinking about his thinking to develop a new theory of knowledge they would both be "witness observers"? It seems like they would be "witness observers" but in addition also be "witness thinkers" or conscious thinkers. Like you called it "internal observation/thinking" or in POF it would be thinking observation or the contemplation of thinking.

        Steiner is constantly renaming things in the book as a way to expand the meaning. Though a science of freedom does need understood terms. This is the challenge of having a glossary"What a concept is cannot be expressed in words. Words can do no more than draw our attention to the fact that we have concepts." POF 4.0

        • Thank you for the example, it does make sense to me. While I'm reading all this ideas come to me. I'm reading three versions of the book simultaneously including the Spanish version to better understand the philosophy.

          • Whenever I don't understand the text I refer to another translation. Of the 9 translations there is always one translator who will translate it clearly. What would happen if you made an all-star translation that went line by line through the book and selected the best version from among the 9 translations? I have found the clearest translation of a single line may be in any 1 of the 9 English versions. If this was done from a point of overall knowledge of the book you would end up with an amazing edition that encompassed the best of all the translators.

            • Definitely a great project for when I finish the book. I can see how some of the sentences lose their meaning in the different translations.

          • You say "While I'm reading all this ideas come to me." That would be contemplation of the text. The reading of the text "kindles" ideas that come to you. Then, when you turn your attention to these ideas that were kindled, it is contemplation of thinking. These kindled ideas are now past thoughts that you turn your full attention to and think about. The process continues on...

            Except this is not normally the case. It is "exceptional" when this happens. Normally we go about life and observe things. Thoughts are kindled in our head as a running commentary of what we are observing. We may be aware of these thoughts in the background as we go about our day. Step 2 is not taken. We do not stop to go within and introspectively contemplate, with our full attention, the ideas that the world has kindled in us. You can't give your full attention to these inner thoughts while you are running around or you may cause an accident.

            "The Western world no longer demands pious exercises and ascetic practices as a preparation for science, but it does require a sincere willingness to withdraw oneself awhile from the immediate impressions of life, and to betake oneself into the realm of pure thought." POF 0.7

            • I get lost sometimes but I keep reading and at some point  I  feel "energize" reading the text.  I wouldn't have ever read the book this way if it wasn't for this website guidelines and explanations.

              • Steiner says the study of The Philosophy Of Freedom can be like reading strings of words without anything coming out of it, or, if you do it properly (thinking observation and thinking about thinking), you will have moments when it is like "the striking of steel on flint" (insight). This is the mystery of the book that is only known by those who reach this study experience. This is the thought-training that develops modern intuitive thinking suited for our scientific age.

                It is my view that the spiritual gurus of our age are found among the scientists, engineers, and computer programmers. The people who are trained to think. Innovation today, including ethics, is coming from the youthful tech community.

This reply was deleted.

Original Unrevised Edition

ONLY original, unrevised edition of "The Philosophy Of Freedom" available on Amazon, ($9.80). Trans. HOERNLE 1916.
Warning: Kindle edition sold on Amazon not Hoernle.

Search this site


NEW GREEK translation of The Philosophy Of Freedom PDF. More English translations here.

Open Comments

You need to be a member of The Philosophy Of Freedom to add comments!

Join The Philosophy Of Freedom


  • Thank you publishers and translators
    I would like to thank all the publishers and translators who have made Rudolf Steiner's "The Philosophy Of Freedom" available to the world. Each translation adds a slightly different perspective of the book allowing the reader to check other translations for help to understand a particular passage.

  • I am going to post the 1922 Hoernle translation of the revised POF 1918 edition when done in a week or two. I also have the Hoernle translation of Truth and Science I would like to post. These are significant translations as Hoernle was a philosopher of Steiner's time approved by Steiner and he wasn't an Anthroposophist trying to insert theosophy into the text.

  • F. Rittlemeyer asked Rudolf Steiner why he never touched upon occult topics before his fourtieth year? Steiner replied, "I first had to attain a certain position in the world. People could say of my present writings (occult) that they are 'mad'. Then, however, there are my earlier works, (philosophy) which cannot be ignored."

This reply was deleted.

Latest Activity

Tom Last posted a blog post
SEARCH: Use the word search in your browser to search The Philosophy Of Freedom as the book is all…
16 hours ago
Tom Last updated their profile
Tom Last commented on Tom Last's blog post Who Has Been Tampering With Steiner's Philosophy Of Freedom?
"I am working on a project to produce an edition of the Philosophy Of Freedom text to post online th…"
Tom Last updated their profile

Ethical Individualism

Learn more about Ethical Individualism here

Ethical Activism

Learn more about Ethical Activism here.

Blog Archive





Art & Humor