Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 84

Continuing my commentary on the 25th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier's Anthroposophy and Ecofascism.

All of the quotes so far have been from Steiner's anthroposophical period. Did Steiner always think of Haeckel this way, or was he once completely under the sway of Haeckel's philosophy as has been alleged by some critics attempting to paint Steiner as inconsistent?

Why did Steiner dedicate a book to Haeckel?

Just two years before stepping forward as an initiate, Rudolf Steiner completed a systematic survey of philosophical thought in the nineteenth century and dedicated it to, of all people, Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel himself a just finished his book and considered himself a philosopher as well as a scientist. Later as he published books such as Theosophy, Rudolf Steiner found himself in the position of having to defend this dedication, as it was considered inconsistent with Anthroposophy as Steiner was attempting to unfold it. In the preface to his book An Outline Of Esoteric Science Rudolf Steiner noted:

A reader of the author's earlier writings — for example his work on nineteenth century philosophies or his short essay on Haeckel and his Opponents — might well be saying: ‘How can one and the same man be the author of these works and of the book Theosophy (published in 1904) or of the present volume? How can he take up the cudgels for Haeckel and then offend so grossly against the straightforward monism, the philosophic outcome of Haeckel's researches? One could well understand the writer of this Occult Science attacking all that Haeckel stood for; that he defended him and even dedicated to him one of his main works appears preposterously inconsistent. Haeckel would have declined the dedication in no uncertain terms, had he known that the same author would one day produce the unwieldy dualism of the present work.’
Yet in the author's view one can appreciate Haeckel without having to stigmatize as nonsense whatever is not the direct outcome of his range of thought and his assumptions. We do justice to Haeckel by entering into the spirit of his scientific work, not by attacking him — as has been done — with every weapon that comes to hand. Least of all does the author hold any brief for those of Haeckel's adversaries against whom he defended the great naturalist in his essay on Haeckel and his Opponents. If then he goes beyond Haeckel's assumptions and placed the spiritual view side by side with Haeckel's purely naturalistic view of the Universe, this surely does not rank him with Haeckel's opponents. Anyone who takes sufficient trouble will perceive that there is no insuperable contradiction between the author's present work and his former writings. (GA233a Lecture: 13th January, 1924)

And so Steiner himself states the essence of the argument: it is possible to appreciate Haeckel without agreeing with him, and it is possible to disagree with Haeckel without agreeing with all the others who disagree with him. 100 years later the exact same objections are still being raised to Steiner's work in relationship to Ernst Haeckel.