Talk:Spiritual science/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neutrality!

the following two paragraphs leave little doubt as to the author's attitude toward Steiner:

"Rudolf Steiner called his research Geisteswissenschaft, which has the triple meaning in English of the Humanities generally, of a science of the mind, and of spiritual science. He reported his evolving methodology in a series of books; of these, the most relevant are: The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity and How to Attain Knowledge of Higher Worlds. He also reported on a vast number of research results, both in a series of books (e.g. Theosophy: An Introduction and An Outline of Occult Science) and in many lectures, about 6000 of which were transcribed and are now published.

Steiner's cultural-scientific research extended into nearly every aspect of human life; the major categories of his publications (those for which there are multiple published works devoted solely to the theme) include art, eurythmy, speech and drama, music, fine arts and architecture, art history, education, medicine, science, agriculture, sociology, Christianity and religion. His declared purpose was to bring a new foundation to human existence, and he certainly succeeded in bringing significant impulses to many realms, as out of his work has come a new kind of education, medicine, agriculture, phenomenological approach to science (often called Goethean science), jurisprudence, sociology, psychology, art, and other new directions. Central to his work is a unique view of the human being as a reincarnating, developing soul originating in a spiritual existence and indwelling a bodily organization composed of the physical body; a life and rhythmic organization; and consciousness. Steiner describes a complex interaction of destiny and freedom with considerable scope for free will."

someone might want to take it upon themselves to tone down the reverence somewhat.

It is intended to be descriptive both of what happened historically and the reference 'spiritual science' today: phenomenological, not a point of view. What in it, would you say, is a viewpoint, please?

Please don't feel offended, but the article definitely lacks any critics of this philosophy. Cyberevil 03:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not offended. The page on 'phenomenology' also lacks any critics of that philosophy. Shall we signal it as NPOV-problematic, too?

Hgilbert 02:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)hgilbert

Phenomenology mentions Heidegger as well as Adorno who can be seen as critics of Husserl's phenomenology concept. By the way, I actually appreciate having more editors expanding Wikipedia's entries on philosophy. If you could make the article at hand a little more neutral, it would be a great article indeed. Cyberevil 02:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to fill out the section on Husserl somewhat and extend and balance the rest. Do you know of any other philosophers who have serious work in the field of spiritual science; I would certainly wish to include these if they exist. Hgilbert 22:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is getting into a really good shape and I have removed the NPOV notice. If I can find the time I will try to help out a bit. Happy editing and cheers, Cyberevil 05:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I would certainly welcome further contributions! Hgilbert 02:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

New NPOV notice

A user (Duncharris) has put up an NPOV notice without any new discussion on the talk page. Note that the NPOV box explicitly says "see talk page". There was a previous notice, but this was removed by the only user who had raised concerns. Please explain your concerns before entering the NPOV notice. It would be particularly good manners if you raised concerns on the talk page and allowed a chance for them to be addressed before entering the notice! (The article certainly needs some work.)Hgilbert 11:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It is patently pseudoscience. Legitimate scientific investigation of spiritualism would centre on two points (1) the psychology of spiritualism and (2) the sociology of spiritualism. This does neither, although it is hard to work out what it is exactly, it is clearly not science and the article does not meet the NPOV conditions set forth in wP:NPOV#pseudoscience. — Dunc|☺ 12:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Dilthey and Husserl are philosophers, not spiritualists. You badly misconstrue the term; it does not refer to natural science; this is clear from in the text. I will add a clarifying sentence, however, so others do not make the same error.Hgilbert 14:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

New Totally disputed notice

We have some real problems with how to write about this subject. There are some very wild and unsupported (unverifiable) claims made in this article that need to be fixed.

Here's my two cents:

1. Spirituality is necessarily about what is "unseen" and "subjective".
2. Science is necessarily about what is "observed" and "objective".

Trying to combine these two approaches is laudable, but will necessarily mean marginalizing one point or the other. Whenever science has gone about trying to observe or measure "spirit", it has found nothing. This doesn't mean that "spirit" doesn't exist, only that it may not be observable in the sense that science demands.

We need to, therefore, make it clear that there are people who disagree with this assessment I outline above (which is, dare I say, the scientific consensus on the matter). We need to make sure their ideas are clearly declared and described with the normal amount of criticism.

Thanks,

ScienceApologist 14:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Spiritual Science" is, of course, another term for Anthroposophy. I don't think there is anything relevant in this article that cannot be merged into the Anthroposophy article. I agree with the totally disputed tag - Spiritual Science is an oxymoron intended to legitimize Steiner's observations. Pete K 15:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are numerous people working in this direction outside of Anthroposophy; the Templeton Prize is a sterling example of this interest (and I am truly puzzled why this was deleted from the article).

Templeton prize does not mention in any of its literature "spiritual science". That's original research. --ScienceApologist 01:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Natural science is about the observable outer world; social science already includes psychological and interpersonal/sociological (social) realities that go beyond the observable. If psychological realities are observable - and they obviously are - then science can be applied to inward perceptions of certain kinds, at least. It is a question many people are currently trying to explore whether this can be the case for spiritual perceptions, as well. Hgilbert 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

social science already includes psychological and interpersonal/sociological (social) realities that go beyond the observable. not according to social science or sociology it doesn't. --ScienceApologist 01:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The introduction to social sciences says: "The social sciences, in studying subjective, inter-subjective and objective or structural aspects of society..." What do you think subjective and inter-subjective mean, other than psychological and interpersonal? Hgilbert 01:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's definition is irrelevant. All that matters it that the inter-subjectivity they are discussing is considered observable. --ScienceApologist 14:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

geisteswissenschaften

the term geisteswissenschaften in german means humanities or social sciences. nobody outside anthroposophical circles thinks about anything spiritual when hearing the term. also i support the merge with anthroposophy. maybe with a redirect of spiritual science to anthropop.trueblood 18:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Husserl certainly did. Dilthey used the term comprehensively, and expressly beyond the social sciences or humanities. Hgilbert 01:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And are you saying that anyone studies these people outside the context of anthroposophy? --ScienceApologist 01:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm....Husserl was a mainstream philosopher virtually unknown in most anthroposophical circles. He is considered the founder (or one of the founders) of an important philosophical stream. Dilthey was a mainstream "social scientist" (quotes because he rejected the term and was half a philosopher as well) who is of great historical importance. He was one of the most famous thinkers of his time - and is equally unknown in anthroposophical circles, by the way. Hgilbert 01:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The question is, though, is their user of geisteswissenschaften as "spiritual science" acknowledged outside of anthroposphical circles. If not, then there is no justification for using them as a reason for the article to exist. --ScienceApologist 01:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if it is acknowledged outside of Anthroposophical circles (I don't believe it is), the article is almost entirely about Anthroposophy - written by HGilbert and now defended by HGilbert. The redirection to Anthroposophy is appropriate. Edited to add - the proliferation of articles like this, and HGilbert's role in this, is one of the points of the current arbitration. Pete K 01:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

How about these links: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], none of which have any relationship to anthroposophy, and apparently thousands more (Google "spiritual science"). It is a widely used term. Hgilbert 02:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is by no means only about anthroposophy. As I have already stated on this talk page, it needs filling out with other movements that use the term. It should be balanced, not removed. Hgilbert 02:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but that's not what's happening here. This is not an article about anything discussed in the links you have produced - it's an article about Anthroposophy. If it were an article about anything BUT Anthroposophy, there wouldn't be a question about keeping it. In fact, a good exercise would be to produce an article about Spiritual Science without mentioning Anthroposophy or Steiner. Give that a try and let's use it as a starting point. Pete K 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Hgilbert, aside from all using the term "spiritual science", I can find no commonality between those links. There doesn't seem to be an umbrella subject for the term. It may be possible to have articles on spiritual science (Kriya Yoga), spiritual science (silent light), etc. but lumping all those subjects together as a subject for a single article would be original research. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The common element is the attempt to find a systematic (read: scientific) approach to spirituality. This is a thread that runs from Dilthey through Husserl, Steiner, and many contemporary movements and figures. Husserl was programmatic about this in his last works (see article citations); even Dilthey spoke about the "Wissenschaft des Geistes" as one branch of the "Geisteswissenschaften", whereby the "science of the spirit" (literal translation) for him was essentially limited to the human spirit (the mind). Hgilbert 00:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

How about - these guys all breathed air? That's a common element too. This is a loosly-defined term that you are obviously trying to defend in order to further promote Anthroposophy. Why not start an article entitled "Wissenschaft des Geistes"? Producing a new article for every buzz-word that Steiner used and every Anthroposophist that ever lived is not what Wikipedia is for. Start your own Wiki if this is so important to you. Pete K 02:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)