Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 14
Continuing my comments on the 5th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism'.
The implication that anthroposophists attempt to hide their "highly esoteric doctrine" because they consider it only "suitable only for a spiritually enlightened elite" seems laughable in light of the fact that nearly every Waldorf School sells Rudolf Steiner's highly esoteric books openly in their bookstores. Has Peter Staudenmaier ever actually visited a Waldorf School?
In actual fact Bloch did not oppose anthroposophy
"from the beginning." The book cited to this effect ( Heritage of our Time, in German Erbschaft der Zeit) was first published in 1935. (I should note that the essay that mentions anthroposophy was written around 1923 according to the book's editor. However, to actually "oppose" anthroposophy
requires publishing, speaking publicly, or otherwise undertaking action on the subject.) Anthroposophy was at that point about 35 years old, and Steiner was already 10 years dead. By indulging in such rhetorical flourishes, Staudenmaier undermines his credibility as a historian.
The implication that anthroposophists attempt to hide their "highly esoteric doctrine" because they consider it only "suitable only for a spiritually enlightened elite" seems laughable in light of the fact that nearly every Waldorf School sells Rudolf Steiner's highly esoteric books openly in their bookstores. Has Peter Staudenmaier ever actually visited a Waldorf School?
In actual fact Bloch did not oppose anthroposophy
"from the beginning." The book cited to this effect ( Heritage of our Time, in German Erbschaft der Zeit) was first published in 1935. (I should note that the essay that mentions anthroposophy was written around 1923 according to the book's editor. However, to actually "oppose" anthroposophy
requires publishing, speaking publicly, or otherwise undertaking action on the subject.) Anthroposophy was at that point about 35 years old, and Steiner was already 10 years dead. By indulging in such rhetorical flourishes, Staudenmaier undermines his credibility as a historian.
posted by Daniel | 2:00 PM
<< Home