page contents

Blog

All Posts (196)

Motivated by the interest given by this site to my partial (working) translation of Herbert Witzenmann's valuable exposition on the POF, I updated my introduction, improved the already translated text and translated the first paragraph of the second chapter today, which can be found underneath as well as on http://freedom-and-creation.blogspot.nl

II. THE BASIC COMPOSITIONAL PRINCIPLES OF "THE PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM

The unity of form and content as meditative soul guidance/ The compositional basis of the two parts/ The “word” character of the “Philosophy of Freedom”/ The merit and nature of psychic observation or introspection/ The compositional arrangement of the two main parts of the work.

1

First a summary will be given of the afore-going indications that are now to be substantiated in detail. The composition of the “Philosophy of Freedom” does not follow the rules normally applied to literary constructions. The value of such rules is not to be denied and for this work they are of secondary importance as well. Compositionally of essence for the subject of this study, however, is the coincidence of its form and its content in a third factor, which does not appear through the means of expression but only in the experience of the reader. This factor, which is not representable by letters but only to be evoked, receives its living strength from the correspondence between de structure of what is presented and its content. The content of this book is on the one hand the nature of reality, and on the other hand the nature of the human being whose calling is to become free. It describes the emergence of freedom and reality from the same root.

From this embracing compositional principle proceed also the individual parts of the presentation. Though this formal attribute is not explicitly indicated as such in the expositions of the content, it ensues from the content itself, the arrangement of which it determines. The formal characteristic of the chapters emerges all the more clearer from their conceptional interrelationship. This is therefore not just a logical one; the mere logical train of thought could also take another course. Instead, logical and aesthetic principle intersect each other in the composition of the work, since both are subservient to the superior principle of its reality- and spirit-based organization. By virtue of the fact that the author, through this art of presentation, offers the reader the possibility to participate in the gradual unfoldment of the text as a happening that does not only belong to the subjective representations of the author, but that represents reality itself through its structural-compositional correspondence  with it, all factors of the soul life of the one thus approached (next to mentally representing also his feeling and willing) are addressed and set in motion. The reader is being confronted in the totality of his humanity with the natural as well as his own reality and invited to enter into their realm. The reading thereby becomes an exercise in meditation, and this all the more so as the inexpressibility of the expression in its inner reenactment becomes conscious. The thus experientially achieved reunion with reality that in the mentally representing faculty of the present-day human being has faded into a schema, is the eye-opener for the higher spiritual world above which the world of the senses spreads its veil. In which way the “Philosophy of Freedom” as aesthetic-meditative soul guidance, as a conceptional work of art is the most reliable and trustworthy guide to the threshold where essence and appearance part, that is what now shall be gradually developed. 

2

This contemplation first turns to the two main parts of the “Philosophy of Freedom”. The compositional significance of the other parts shall be viewed later.

Information about the viewpoints under which the main content of the work in both main parts “Science of Freedom” and “The Reality of Freedom” are arranged is given above all by the Preface to the New Edition (1918) and the First Addition to its third part, “The Consequences of Monism”, in the new edition, i.e. remarks placed at the beginning and at the end of the whole text.

The preface to the new edition points to the two “basic questions of the life of the human soul”, towards which everything is directed what is to be addressed by this book. One of these basic questions concerns the search for a fixed point within the human being, the other concerns that most essential of the manifestations coming forth from such a point, if the latter exists. “One is: Is it possible to find a view of the essential nature of man such as will give us a foundation for everything else that comes to meet us — whether through life experience or through science — which we feel is otherwise not self-supporting and therefore liable to be driven by doubt and criticism into the realm of uncertainty? The other question is this: Is man entitled to claim for himself freedom of will, or is freedom a mere illusion begotten of his inability to recognize the threads of necessity on which his will, like any natural event, depends? […]This book is intended to show that the experiences which the second problem causes man's soul to undergo depend upon the position he is able to take up towards the first problem. An attempt is made to prove that there is a view of the nature of man's being which can support the rest of knowledge; and further, that this view completely justifies the idea of free will, provided only that we have first discovered that region of the soul in which free will can unfold itself.”

In the first addition to the third part of the book “The Consequences of Monism” the following words are found: “The second part of this book (“The Reality of Freedom”) finds its natural support in the first part. This presents intuitive thinking as man's inwardly experienced spiritual activity. To understand this nature of thinking by experiencing it amounts to a knowledge of the freedom of intuitive thinking. And once we know that this thinking is free, we can also see to what region of the will freedom may be ascribed. We shall regard man as a free agent if, on the basis of inner experience, we may attribute a self-sustaining essence to the life of intuitive thinking. Whoever cannot do this will never be able to discover a path to the acceptance of freedom that cannot be challenged in any way. This experience, to which we have attached such importance, discovers intuitive thinking within consciousness, although the reality of this thinking is not confined to consciousness. And with this it discovers freedom as the distinguishing feature of all actions proceeding from the intuitions of consciousness.”

These two indications characterize the relation between both main parts of the work. The first main part describes how the human being emerges from reality and what sort of relation he can assume with regard to it. The second main part describes how the human being can produce out of himself a self-induced reality and what significance this has for the evolution of the world.

There is thus an inverse relationship between both parts; the first part describing the emergence of the human being from existing reality, the second part a new reality arising out of the human being.

From a knowledge of the text and also in view of the afore-mentioned, it may be objected that the theme of the emergence of reality out of the human being, namely its origin in the human act of knowledge, is already to be found in the first part. This objection is only justified, however, in so far as it concerns the ideational-functional intertwining of both parts; it concerns furthermore two different sorts of reality. The cognitional reenactment of the real through the union of percept and concept becomes conscious of reality with the knowledge of each thing or being. In this way, however, the human being also becomes conscious of his own emergence from reality. For cognition gives insight into the natural foundations of human existence, the origin of his physical organism out of matter and processes derived from the kingdoms of nature. Knowledge in its acts, however, is at the same time self-realization. For in the co-formation of reality the human being forms himself as a spiritual being, thus experiencing also the spiritual part of his being in its emergence from the real. This genesis is at the same time, however, also the origin of his faculty for ideational intuitions, from which the new reality sphere of his freedom arises. In that realm the human being moreover also experiences the continuing influence of the original nature-like reality-forming powers. For it is from them that he creates his libertarian being, yet in such a way that he reshapes them in his own being and thereby imparting them a new form-of-being. Thus the formation of reality and freedom interpenetrate each other in both main parts of the work, yet in a different manner.  By the characterization of these parts, it is therefore good to turn one’s gaze, on the one hand, upon  the emergence of the human being from reality, and on the other hand upon the emergence of reality from the human being.

Even though both parts of the “Philosophy of Freedom” unfold their presentation task in a manner that every time, although from different points of view, blends the whole realm of human existence, it is nevertheless in both cases another mode of expression of the total human being that determines the basic character of its remarks. The conceptional development about the “Science of Freedom” in the first part is directed towards the willing human being, that about the “Reality of Freedom” in the second part of the book towards the knowing human being. Both ideations therefore run absolutely counter to a literal superficial understanding of the text. The basic stance of the first part is very clearly marked by the passages already cited: that a “complete justification” for the idea of the freedom of the will can be attained, “if only first the realm of the soul is found, on which the free will can be unfolded”, and that the first part of the work describes “intuitive thinking as inward spiritual activity of the human being.” The basic thought that runs through these deliberations is one of productive-coproductive cognition that is not confronted with a ready-made pre-given reality (either reproducing or even only affected), but that lets this emerge in its process under its own co-emergence. This presentation appeals to the willingness to observe and think and is therefore a schooling of the will, suited to a modern mode of consciousness, a path of training on the meditative culture of spiritual activity. The second part of the work dedicated to “The Reality of Freedom” turns on the other hand to the cognizant human being.  It gives an overview about the motivational structure of volition and how a new cultural impulse arising out of free deeds can be integrated into the old nature-like and nature-based world. Such a situational knowledge is required by the human being, who is developing  his cognitional practice, if he does not wish to wind up on detours or false paths.

 That the chapter about “The Idea of Freedom” belongs to the second part of the work is consistent with this characteristic. The chapter about “The Human Individuality” that corresponds with it (according to the symmetry of the textual construction developed in the following pages) is found on the other hand in the first part of the work. The through his cognitional practice self-realizing human individuality becomes fully conscious of the essential features and significance of its deeds when it apprehends the idea of freedom in a world and man overlapping overview.

What is noteworthy by both afore-mentioned cited attributes, which Rudolf Steiner himself has given about the relation between both main parts, is the symmetry of his remarks. The statement in the preface to the new edition at the beginning of the text  corresponds with the second addition that Rudolf Steiner added to the third part of his work. After the remarks in the preface to the new edition about the two fundamental questions  that determine the arrangement of the content and composition of his work, he proceeds to indicate its relation to the spiritual world of experience. He designates the task that he gave himself as the proof “to show that open-minded consideration simply of the two questions I have indicated and which are fundamental for every kind of knowledge, leads to the view that man lives in the midst of a genuine spiritual world.” He who strives for certainty in the realm of the spiritual world of experience will not be able to do without this justification.

In the second addition that Rudolf Steiner placed at the end of his book, this remark corresponds to the following, “In intuitively experienced thinking man is carried into a spiritual world also as perceiver. Within this spiritual world, whatever confronts him as percept in the same way that the spiritual world of his own thinking does will be recognized by him as a world of spiritual perception. This world of spiritual perception could be seen as having the same relationship to thinking that the world of sense perception has on the side of the senses. Once experienced, the world of spiritual perception cannot appear to man as something foreign to him, because in his intuitive thinking he already has an experience which is purely spiritual in character. Such a world of spiritual perception is discussed in a number of writings which I have published since this book first appeared. The Philosophy of Freedom forms the philosophical foundation for these later writings. For it tries to show that the experience of thinking, when rightly understood, is in fact an experience of spirit.” 

(To be continued)

Read more…

By Andrew

[The POF 1.12] "All science would be nothing but the satisfaction of idle curiosity did it not strive to enhance the existential value of human personality. The true value of the sciences is seen only when we have shown the importance of their results for humanity."

Science as an enterprise functions through individuals. Nothing is done in science that doesn't take place first in one, then in a shared community of people's thinking, knowing, and acting.

"..The final aim of the individuality can never be the cultivation of any single faculty, but only the development of all capacities which slumber within us.

[1.13] This book, therefore, does not conceive of science and life in such a way that a person must bow down before the world of ideas and devote their powers to its service ((A curious description of the doctrine of determinism)). On the contrary, it shows that they take possession of the world of ideas in order to use them for their human aims, which transcend those of mere science." R.S.

We each have but one life to experience and make our impression on the world with. There is no greater determining factor on our behavior and personality then our perception of the world in which we are living. Perception is radically altered by the concepts we bring to bear on our experience of the world.

[4.3] "There is a far-reaching difference between the ways in which, for me, the parts of a process are related to one another before, and after, the discovery of the corresponding concepts."

Just as choosing to know the rules to a complex game you choose to play is indispensable in succeeding, we may conclude that by virtue of being alive(playing a game), we have a (self determined) moral imperative to seek true knowledge about our lives and the reality which constitutes it. That is, the pursuit of knowledge is a personal process by which the existential value of all our lives hinges. Humanities collective progress concerning this situation comes down to us as a massive conceptual heritage. By deciding to participate you become one of those who uses the method of science(philosophy) to increase the existential value of humanity, and consequentially yourself.

Where does humanity stand as a whole in terms of possessing and accessing true knowledge of reality? How rich is our existential existence?

The feeling that we have it all figured out is a persistent enemy of knowledge both in our personal lives, and in the greater development of humanities understanding. To forget this is to guarantee yourself to be partially blinded to reality, a potentially hazardous endeavor. The remedy? Do not forget to revel in contemporary mysteries, periodically. The primary "mystery centers" (by volume) of our time are the great branches of academia and universities. To be involved is to participate in or follow the vanguard endeavors of philosophy and science.

One of these fundamental "known-unknowns" which persists in our age of scientific discovery was relatively recently named "the hard problem of consciousness" by philosopher David Chalmers. Popularly, it walks hand in hand with the problem of how humans could have any kind of freedom. But it gets deeper than that. We have quite a few running mysteries in contemporary science. Perhaps the one which looms largest, although not popularly, is the problem of the Big Bang and its initial cause(s). Known in some circles as science's "one free miracle" given which it could explain everything else. The nature of the solar system, Earth, as well as our galaxies behavior are still hotly debated. The question of the origin of life has captured our imaginations. Another one which pops up on the social conscience is the mysteries surrounding Quantum Mechanics. Exotic terms like "dark matter" "dark energy" and "anti-matter" provide chaff for fiction writers and consumers. In fact, every branch of science has its mysteries, it's anomalies. Our exposure to them depends on how closely we associate with the field.

But when Chalmers coined his term he meant something a little more than a mere collection of anomalies. A "hard problem" is insurmountable. It's a crack in the foundation, under it, all through it. This contradicts a narrative called the "Gap Theory of Scientific Progress." That is, all that we have left to do is fill in the little missing pieces of a mostly complete and smoothly functioning scientific theory of the world. The cult classic "Structures of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn is a must read on this subject. Predictably according to Kuhn, these two philosophers of science (not practicing scientists entrenched within a paradigm) are signaling to their specialized peers that there is indeed a bifurcation running through the heart of our current scientific paradigm. Curiously, being able to spot the problem doesn't guarantee you know it's cause.

"The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences—how sensations acquire characteristics, such as colors and tastes."

"It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does."

The problem revolves around the proper explanation regarding the boundary between a personal or subjective experience(that of redness for example) and the universal or objective cause of it. What is given prior to analysis is the subjective experience, so it's status as a "real" entity in reality cannot be questioned. Given something like the experience of redness, we now need to explain what kind of process can account for this. In our attempts to do so we turned to the object outside our body which caused it. Here the problems begin. We have one definite category of reality, the "subjective." The next step we imagine is to find a cause for the so called effect. Notice again how Chalmers frames the problem.

"It is widely accepted that experience arises from a physical basis,"

Wide acceptance is a hallmark of paradigm science, but as a Kuhn tells us, this is often in the final moment where stumbling blocks are met. Chalmers follows the contemporary imperative to introduce a second category of reality which fits the role of objective cause, a dualism. Why do this? Our current science has long followed a Materialist ideology in its attempts to explain objects, with much perceived success. In fact the problem today is that we have become so accustomed to this approach that it appears to us self evident. By introducing this physicalist dualism we have created an insolvable conceptual snare. A hard problem. A question of how to bridge two sides of reality. Most recently, certain philosophers have predictably suggested we could just hack of the problematic subjective side. This is the parable about sawing the branch you're perched on. We cannot be so coarse as to simply deny the conduit for which the whole problem arises originally, within consciousness(subjectiveness).

According to Kuhn, a paradigm shift often moves from one center to another pre existing center. So what existing philosophical tradition will be the inherent of the progress of western science? I would like to survey briefly a candidate theory championed by a little known early 20th century philosopher.

(http://wn.rsarchive.org/Articles/AtmRef_index.html)

Published in 1890, the then strictly academic philosopher Rudolf Steiner's essay 'Atomism, and it's Refutation' is a short, straight forward, conceptual dismantling of the theory of atoms as fundamental constituents of reality. Pointing to the exact issues Chalmers does, Steiner considers inherent contradictions in (still) current theories of sense impression. The cause of the problem for Steiner revolves around the particles fundamental conceptual ineptness to fulfill its designated role within the system. Even then, the paper stood in radical opposition to contemporary Physics, which regards the particle as the true bearer of reality. With a sense of extreme anachronism he dismisses the whole reliance of particles within his model. I wonder how many more essay were ever published in this vein? This type of thinking went out of vogue as Materialism flowered in the 19th century. Let's revisit what was once and may become again a central paradigm Steiner deems 'Monism.'

"To recapitulate. The physicist explains all sense-perceivable, all sense-perceptible qualities by motion. So, what moves cannot yet have qualities. But what has no qualities cannot move at all. Therefore, the atom assumed by physicists is a thing that dissolves into nothing if judged sharply.

So, the whole way of explanation falls. We must ascribe to color, warmth, sounds, etc., the same reality as to motion. With this, we have refuted the physicists, and have proved the objective reality of the world of phenomena and of ideas."

- Atomism and its Refutation, R. Steiner

In the POF, particularly in chapters 6 through 8 of the original English translation, Steiner goes about dismantling the reality of atoms in even greater depth.

[8.4] "Every kind of reality which is assumed to exist outside the sphere of perception and conception must be relegated to the limbo of unverified hypotheses."

[8.12] The dualist believes that the whole world would be dissolved into a mere abstract scheme of concepts, did he not posit the existence of real connections beside the conceptual ones. In other words, the ideal principles which thinking discovers are too airy for the Dualist, and (s)he seeks, in addition, real principles with which to support them."

[6.30] "To form a link between subject and object is impossible for any real process, in the naive sense of the world "real," in which it means a process which can be perceived."

[8.11] "Dualism makes the mistake of transferring the opposition of subject and object, which has meaning only within the perceptual world, to pure conceptual entities outside this world. "

[8.22] "The imperceptible forces of which perceptible things are the bearers, are in fact, illegitimate hypotheses from the standpoint of Naïve Realism. But because naïve realism knows no other realities, it invest it's hypothetical forces with perceptual content. It thus transfers a form of existence (the existence of percepts) to a sphere where the only means of making an assertion concerning such existence, via sense perception, is lacking.

[8.23] This self-contradictory theory leads to Metaphysical Realism."

[8.4] Position and motion are extracted from the rich world of percepts. They are then transferred to the fictitious world of atoms. And then we are astonished that we fail to involve concrete life of the principles of our own making, which we have borrowed from the world of percepts."

[16.1] Monism declines to seek outside the world the ultimate grounds of the world which we perceive and think. For monism, the unity which reflective observation adds to the manifold multiplicity of percepts, is identical with the unity which the human desire for knowledge demands, and through which the desire is fully satisfied."

Steiner is trying to express to us a scientific world view in which we can no longer see a bottom up physicalist approach as valid. This, as mentioned was radical for his time, and has only grown more so as we descended into the assumption of atoms as real entities of nature. However, it's radical nature does not displace the fact that his published views were also in a sense, surprisingly predictive of things to come. As the quantum revolution unfolded just after his death, it ushered in many more problems which forced exoteric Science(as we have seen) to deal once again with the shortcomings of a Materialist approach to explaining reality. The Materialist's precious particles underwent such a radical conceptual barrage that it has fractured their trust in them, if at least in the forward thinking radical minds of our time. Those who allow themselves to entertain such dilemmas without referring to the refuge of dogma and pushing ahead indifferently, within a specialized micro set of "reality."

Since Steiners death, anyone who reckoned with the conceptual shortcomings posed by this Materialist view in light of further unfolding discoveries have famously failed to overcome them. Einstein, the worlds most famous genius worked on a unifying theory for decades. Never achieving this goal.

"Hence it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last analysis, anything given in nature independent of human thought. It is a function of our conceptual scheme."

"One has to find a way to avoid the continuum(together with space and time) altogether. But I have not the slightest idea what kind of elementary concepts could be used in such a theory."

- Einstein

Einsteins conceptual hang up, like many before and after him, is due to his being guilty of making the mistake Steiner associates with Metaphysical Realism above. Einstein needs there to be a "real" natural process to unify perception with reality, beside our conceptual understanding. His refusal to give up this requirement proves to be an unconscious assumption, hence his inability to think around it.

"(Einstein's) adherence to the continuum did not (quoting Einstein) 'originate in a prejudice, but arises out of the fact that I have been unable to think up anything organic to take its place.' "

There exists a host of curious quotes from the famous QMers, Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, Bohm and Feynman illustrating their bafflement. What we must take from this is not that the obscure Steiner was that much more brilliant, a polymath genius in the rough (that he may none the less prove to be so, eventually). These men were highly skilled thinkers. The take away must be that reality is not necessarily unknowable, but indeed so coherent that no amount of genius can make it fit in to a bad replica (a bad theory). It proves Materialism is on a dead end track. Steiner's real advantage was one of perspective.

Steiner insists that progress rests upon our acceptance of thoughts ability to access universal ideal principles which in reality are the "underside" (or nexus point) of our perceptual content. We can think of it as replacing the vague notions of "forces of nature" and "laws of nature."

[8.28] "Monism replaces forces by ideal relations which are supplied by thought. These relations are the laws of nature. A law of nature is nothing but the conceptual expression for the connection of certain percepts."

Steiner replaces the assumption of a visual boundary(or some other sense boundary) between us and reality, with a conceptual one. Where before we had no ability (even aided by technological development i.e. Electron Scanning Microscopes etc.) to transcend this boundary with our natural perception, thought bridges the so called gap.

This system has absolute implications for every field of science for which particles are related. Given that physics has been classically, the darling of the sciences, it's tenants are like tracks each other science has followed in tail. The picture we get is of a change in the vanguard of the philosophy of science. A paradigm shift. This as mentioned is already occurring. Things like the Relativity/Quantum Mechanics face off of the 1920s, and later String Theory are the pre-tremors. The stage is set for a major ground shift to occur, and I believe Steiner, even by 1900 was uniquely positioned to predict its outcome in a way that nearly no other mind would be or is still able to still. (With exception in my opinion to the work done by contemporary physicists Tom Campbell)

The system Steiner gave us prior to the dawning of our contemporary physics is one where the absolute "limits" of our perception are unrequitedly accepted, in that we do not seek to push through them, or class them as the prime barrier to our perceiving reality. Instead for Steiner, the barrier is between the content of the self and the world as a unity. The barrier is pre-conditioned by nature, but it is not absolute. Through our thinking we recursively cross the boundary between the manifold of broken off (subjective) percepts and the unified conceptual world of which they came. Reality does not emerge into perceptions from the very small, it emerges from the unity of concept with percept, provided by thinking. Physicists want to dive in and "see" reality, if only they're technology can extend their sensory perception. What they fail to realize is that there never was a world below the visual to see! This is an extraordinary realization. When they look in smaller and smaller portions of space, they should instead be examining their thinking. By uniting the correct universal concepts with the perceptions as given, a scientist can know reality.

Steiner DOES want us to accept the validity of a realm of reality for which we cannot "see." But he cautions rigorously against building theories in the air. So what realm is he pointing to? He wants to open our scientific eyes to a world that is composed of objects and processes which have a conceptual side completely bound together with its perceptible side, forming an all encompassing whole. A whole in which the human being is perfectly situated to grasp.

Science must abandon the idea of bottom up atomistic physics and begin again with this new method. A "New Science" in the tradition of Goethe and others. Luckily it hardly means a full 180. We can not lose the baby as the saying goes. All of the conceptual principals Materialist have put in place along the way must remain! It is merely the cumbersome model of particle physics that will go, and with it all of the pesky misapprehensions it ushers in. A welcome change. As our conception of the world changes, our perception changes. When we live in a new world we become new beings. Think of what language has done for our species, perhaps a "new science" can do something similar?

100 years down the line, there does now exist academic precedents for these ideas outside of Steiner. To quote the Digital Physics Wikipedia page, "In physics and cosmology, digital physics (also referred to as digital ontology or digital philosophy) is a collection of theoretical perspectives based on the premise that the universe is describable by information. According to this theory, the universe can be conceived of as either the output of a deterministic or probabilistic computer program, a vast, digital computation device, or mathematically isomorphic to such a device."

Here the word 'information' takes on a central role, becoming a buzz word in some circles. This takes little effort to transform into the concept the word concept points to. The world is fundamental related by concepts (information).

There now exists a breed of highly scientific, brilliant individuals who feel the need to theorize once again beyond Materialism. I believe they deserve to be influenced by the greatest ideas mankind has brought forth on the subject, therefore I believe they deserve to devour Steiner's opinions on the subject. What I see as needing to happen is a collaboration between philosophers, scientists, and the material produced by Steiner before (and after) 1900. As Steiner may help shed light on exoteric Science's dilemmas, so too should exoteric Science help shed much needed light on our obscure polymaths later esoteric Anthroposophical system. Neither exoteric nor esoteric science's content and participants should be scoffed out without visitation accompanied by an understanding of this new more comprehensive science. I encourage qualified individuals to help undertake the testing of this exciting potential revolution in the way we relate to reality as a species.

Read more…

Cognitive neuroscientists have discovered where in the brain “aha moments” occur and the gamma and alpha brainwave bursts involved. Combining this discovery with knowledge from psychology and philosophy may show why human freedom is possible.

The Philosophy Of Freedom by Rudolf Steiner (See Chapter 9.1 revised edition, online here )

Book: The Eureka Factor: Aha Moments, Creative Insight, and the Brain by John Kounios and Mark Beeman, Read PDF article

Read more…

Love For The Deed

Friday's video will be on this section of The Philosophy Of Freedom.
(Text revised for improved readability)

Chapter 9.8
Love For The Deed

When we look for the laws (conceptual principles) underlying the actions of individuals, peoples, and epochs, we obtain a system of Ethics that is not a science of ethical norms, but rather a science of morality as a natural fact. The laws discovered in this way relate to human behavior as the laws of nature relate to particular phenomena. These laws, however, are not at all identical with the impulses that we make the basis of our action. If we want to understand how a human action springs from an individual’s ethical willing, we must first study the relationship of this willing to the action in question. For this purpose we must single out for study those actions where ethical willing is the determining factor. When I, or someone else, later review my action, one can discover what ethical principles come into consideration for that action.

While I am acting, the ethical principle moves me to act to the extent it lives in me intuitively; this intuitive ethical principle is united with my love for the goal that I want to accomplish by my deed. I do not ask any person or rules, “Should I do this?” On the contrary, I carry it out the moment I have grasped the Idea of it. This alone makes it my action. If a person acts because he accepts a certain moral norm, his deeds will be the result of the principles that compose his moral code. He merely carries out orders. He is a higher kind of machine. Toss a stimulus to act into his awareness, and, right away, the clockwork of his moral principles are set in motion and run its course in a lawful manner to produce a deed that is Christian, or humane, or selfless, or to further the progress of civilization.

However, only when I follow my love for the objective is it I myself who acts. At this level of morality, I acknowledge no lord over me, no external authority, and no so-called inner voice of my conscience. I recognize no external principle for my action, because I have found in myself the ground of action in my love for the deed. I do not consider whether my action is good or bad; I do it because I am in love with it. My action is “good” when, with loving intuition, I fit myself in the right way within the world continuum (this can be experienced intuitively). The action will be “bad” if this is not the case. I do not ask how another person would act in my situation. I act as I, this unique individuality, wants to act. No common tradition, no common custom, no common human maxim, and no moral norm is my immediate guide. Rather, it is my love for the deed. I feel no compulsion, not the compulsion of natural instincts or the compulsion of moral commandments. I simply want to carry out what lives in me.

Read more…

168 Steps To Freedom

 The Philosophy Of Freedom describes the path of Rudolf Steiner. How is that? It describes his introspective observations of the cognitive and ethical processes. The path is one that seeks inner truth.

Why? Watch this prezi for an answer.

Read more…
© Tom Last 2017