 ◊ "Within the brain nothing at all exists of the nature of thought." — Rudolf Steiner ◊ “Let now these intimations come... Supplanting thinking’s power....”
— Rudolf Steiner STEINER’S SPECIFIC Thinking Without Our Brains I.  According to Rudolf Steiner, life in the ordinary world is, in many ways, a hollow sham. The physical universe is harsh and cold. The daily grind is oppressive. Descent to earthly incarnation weakens our ties to the spirit realm. Steiner cited with approval a line from Goethe:
Humanity is in pain, Steiner said. He described “the longing human soul in its yearning, tormented emptiness” [2] and he offered his own teachings as the antidote:
Things are worse than ever in the modern age, Steiner suggested, and he knew the reason: Our thinking is badly fouled up. Our values are wrong. And much of this is the result of modern science. Steiner called his own doctrines "spiritual science," claiming that he used clairvoyance to objectively study the spirit realm. Consequently, he sometimes affirmed science and scientific thinking. More often, however, he denounced all sciences except his own. Fundamentally, Anthroposophy is antiscientific. Consider how crazy the modern, scientific point of view really is, according to Steiner:
In offering us a cure for our spiritual sufferings — a cure that would offset the dismal scientific view — Steiner was by no means alone. Many other clerics, theologians, mystics, and gurus have had the same aim, and many of them have attracted far larger followings than Steiner has attracted. But for anyone interested in Waldorf schools, examining Steiner’s teachings is essential, and those teachings must be recognized as a proposed, mystical antidote to the ills of the modern, scientific age. We all would like to live in a world where we feel comfortably secure, warmly loved, and purposeful. Science describes a rather different reality: We live on a small planet orbiting a nondescript little star, far from the center of our galaxy; and our galaxy is but one of innumerable galaxies; as intelligent beings, we may be alone in a vast, dark universe; and nature is indifferent to us, even at times hostile; and we descended from apes; and our bodies are really just biological machines, made up of molecules behaving more or less randomly; and these molecules, in turn, are made up of atoms behaving more or less randomly; and at the subatomic level, there is chaos and indeterminacy; and, and, and... Most people find these scientific propositions disagreeable. Many are horrified, appalled, aghast. (There is another side to science, of course. Some scientific work is distinctly inspiring. Think of the splendors captured in photos taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, for instance.) It is undeniable that as science progresses, humanity's claim that it occupies a central place in the cosmos becomes less and less plausible. [5] In this sense, the need many people feel for an alternative, more spiritual vision grows ever greater. Steiner’s solution was to serve up a dizzyingly intricate description of a universe teeming with spiritual powers and beings, a universe profoundly attentive to humanity, a universe in which dull, daily reality fades away. Life on the physical plane of existence is ensnared in illusion, he taught; it is, in some senses, unreal; beyond it lie the transcendent realms of the spirit, which Steiner can show us. Steiner said that we are led astray both by modern science and, more generally, by materialism. In using the latter term, he did not mean lust for material possessions or wealth. He meant the belief that the material or physical universe is all that exists — the belief, in other words, that the laws science has discovered for physical reality extend everywhere, throughout the universe, and offer a complete description of the universe. Steiner argued that science does a reasonably good job of describing superficial conditions in the immediate here-and-now, but he denied that the same conditions exist elsewhere. He said that the findings of science do not apply to the distant past, or to the distant future, or to the many levels of nonphysical reality. The material realm, he argued, is a temporary, unusual condition, something that evolved out of spiritual reality and that will soon be replaced by a new, higher spiritual reality. Moreover, Steiner taught, we are unable to correctly perceive the underlying truths of the physical here-and-now if we rely on our senses and brains — "natural" science is, in this sense, useless. Our life on Earth is generally ruled by illusion, Steiner said. Our brains and senses cannot penetrate the veil of illusion. Steiner borrowed the Oriental term “maya” for the darkness in which he said most people are caught, [6] and he attributed this darkness to Ahriman, who is one of the two chief demons in Steiner's theology:
In this statement, as in many others, what Steiner means by “Christianity” is actually his own body of doctrines, Anthroposophy — which most Christians would find quite alien to their faith. [9] But the main point is that Steiner professed to offer a system of perception and cognition that transcends the limitations of our senses and brains. Through Anthroposophy, we can dispel the falsehoods of Ahriman. Steiner claimed to perceive the outlines of human evolution. He said that we have progressed from primitive forms of consciousness to ever higher and more accurate forms, culminating for now in Anthroposophy. He argued that natural science, too, has evolved. By the 19th century, it had reached a high plateau, and it produced results of real value to mankind during that period. But its time is now past. In the modern world, Steiner said, spiritual truth is flowing once again and natural science must be overcome to enable us to apprehend spiritual truth. Science and the material world are slated for retirement.
The “new revelation” can be found in Anthroposophy, which Steiner called “spiritual science.” But Anthroposophy actually is — as his words suggest — a mystical religion that devalues real science. [11] II. Steiner taught that the corrupting influence of scientific, materialistic thinking spreads outward into all spheres of human life, including philosophy:
Materialistic thinking — that is, thinking that relies on the material organ called the brain — will doom humanity, creating wholly materialistic human beings, unless we find a spiritualistic remedy. Lacking spiritual truth — that is, lacking Anthroposophy — humanity may cut itself off completely from the spirit. This would be lead to our utter destruction.
Steiner considered this issue so important that, in discussing it, he employed a term he usually avoided: "sin." Materialistic thinking — which as we have seen is associated with maya caused by Ahriman — is sinful.
Materialistic thinking, science, is thus evil. It is sinful. And it will lead to our ruination. The essence of the sin Steiner described is reliance on the brain. Steiner taught that the brain, being a merely physical organ, is incapable for real cognition. It can learn nothing of ultimate importance. The nerves and brain are merely a physical expression of real cognition, which occurs elsewhere. In this sense, “materialistic thinking” is not so much the content of sinful thoughts as the use of the wrong organ in our efforts to think. The use of the mere, material brain leads us into error.
Real cognition, Steiner said, comes to us from the spirit realm. Living here in the physical universe, incarnated within physical bodies, we do not produce real thoughts, thoughts that reveal spiritual truth. Rather, the gods produce these thoughts, and our brains are mere receptacles — imperfect receptacles — for the gods' thoughts. To truly apprehend the gods' thoughts, to attain real cognition, we must develop better, finer organs than our physical brains: We must develop incorporeal organs of clairvoyance. III. Steiner pinned his teachings on the rejection of science, the brain, and intellect — that is, real knowledge of the real world. Instead, he advocated clairvoyance (which does not exist [18]), which he said operates through ethereal organs. This is moonshine, yet it is the essence of Steiner’s teachings. Any worldview that warns us away from the use of our brains must be suspect. It deserves our deepest skepticism or, indeed, it deserves utter rejection. Anthroposophy encourages us to turn our backs on truth and the hard-won fruits of human scholarly, scientific, philosophical, and, yes, theological progress. It encourages us to reject real knowledge and replace it with fantasy, delusion, and ignorance. The only sane response to this advice is a firm No Thanks. Science is mankind’s highest attainment. Raising ourselves laboriously from millennia of ignorance and superstition, we have begun to gain genuine information about our surroundings and ourselves. This is not something we should lightly toss away. It is our finest legacy and our greatest hope. And yet Steiner would junk it in favor of mystical claptrap. We all yearn for the transcendent. We all chafe at the limitations of our lives and conditions, our unfulfilled desires, our mortality. We all wish for something more — we want to rise from dreariness to joyous fulfillment. But it should be perfectly clear that we will solve none of our problems by rejecting real knowledge and turning to fanciful illusions instead. We must stand firmly on the truth, whether or not we find the truth agreeable. We must have the courage to face reality and make the best of it. Running away into fantasy solves nothing. If we are to improve our lot, we will do it by turning to precisely the things Steiner wanted us to discount: our brains, rationality, science, and our expanding store of real information — real knowledge. This is the true path, the upward ascent from blindness to sight, from falsehood to truth. We have been led upward by the great scholars, scientists, philosophers, and theologians of the past, incandescent minds who pushed back the darkness. We should build on their gifts to us, not squander them. We have it in our power to improve ourselves, if only we will have the courage and intellectual honesty to do so. — Roger Rawlings 
"The brain does not produce thoughts." — Waldorf teacher Henk Van Oort, ANTHROPOSOPHY A-Z (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2011), p. 16.
In other words,
Sometimes Steiner had a little — a very little — to say in favor of intellect. It can help us to get beyond it; it can assist our ascent to a level where we no longer need it:
Paraphrase: In my book THE PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM, I describe how intellectual powers can be heightened, leading to the development of exact clairvoyance. Such clairvoyance then exists as a free inner power of the soul. Only after gaining this power can we understand the other components of our being, aside from our powers of pure thought and free will. Through exact clairvoyance (which involves imaginative, inspired, and intuitive consciousness, and goes beyond the limits of the intellect), we attain true self-knowledge and we realize that our true home is the spirit realm. Then we understand that to be fully human, we must develop our exact clairvoyance more and more. The chief benefit of intellect, Steiner taught, is that it makes us more mentally alert, more fully conscious. Hence it strengthens us, allowing us to pursue clairvoyance of a more precise, discerning type — "exact" clairvoyance — than was available to humanity in the past. But in and of itself, intellect does not produce real knowledge. For true cognition, we need exact clairvoyance. [See "Exactly".]
According to Steiner, we descended into our current condition — using lowly intellect instead of divine clairvoyance — due to race mixing. [See "Blood".]
AFTERWORD I.
Why did Rudolf Steiner try to foist his cockeyed, occult fantasies on us? We cannot know. Perhaps he was telling the absolute truth, as he understood it. Perhaps he felt the pain of which he spoke; perhaps ordinary existence was a grievous burden to him, and he turned to occultism out of genuine need and conviction. Perhaps. But other possibilities come to mind. Here's one. I offer it not to assail Steiner the man, but in an effort to place an historical figure in context for whatever light this may provide. Evaluating Steiner's teachings is far more important than attempting to understand Steiner as an individual. Nonetheless, trying to bring historical figures into focus can be informative, making them live in our comprehension and thus helping us to understand their work, at least tangentially. Bear in mind that flawed individuals can make wise statements, and wonderful individuals can speak foolishly. Thus, Steiner's personal weaknesses and strengths have no necessary bearing on the validity of his teachings. Still, holding that proviso in mind, consider the following. It is possible that Steiner became an occultist because he suffered from thwarted ambition. Failing to receive recognition as a great philosopher, he turned to fraudulent spiritualism for the recognition he coveted. Steiner claimed that he had spiritualistic experiences and knowledge beginning in his early youth, and some of his earliest publications bear at least a suggestion of this claim. [19] After graduation from college, he edited the scientific works of Goethe, which express Goethe’s own esotericism. But most of Steiner’s early, original writing was rational and conventional, not esoteric. Considering himself a man of letters, Steiner became editor of Deutsche Wochenschrift [i.e., "German Weekly"]. As an editor of his autobiography has recorded,
Steiner’s first book, A THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE IMPLICIT IN GOETHE'S WORLD CONCEPTION, appeared in 1886. It was followed by TRUTH AND SCIENCE (1892) and THE PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM (1893). Anthroposophists today try to make these books appear consistent with their spiritualistic beliefs, but it is a struggle. In fact, Steiner wrote his early works as a secular intellectual.
Steiner hoped that THE PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM would establish his reputation as a leading thinker, but it did not. [22] Still, he continued to work in ordinary channels. In 1895, he published NIETZSCHE, A FIGHTER AGAINST HIS TIME, followed by other more or less conventional intellectual works. In 1897, he became editor of Magazin für Literatur (“Magazine for Literature”). His writings in this period were indifferent or even hostile to spiritualism, especially Theosophy. Despite his efforts, Steiner was not hailed as the next great German philosopher, and in fact he fell into poverty.
Steiner became
He made his way in important circles, but uneasily.
After several years working as a literary man, Steiner rather suddenly turned to Theosophy and started lecturing about occult “truths.”
Steiner’s friends and students were startled and largely uncomprehending.
Steiner left much of his previous life and many of his previous associates — including his wife — behind.
Steiner separated from his wife in 1903. Steiner soon became head of the German Theosophical Society, and in 1904 he published one of his seminal occultist works, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT. He began devoting virtually all of his considerable energies to occultism.
Marie von Sievers was an aristocrat.
(Note that Steiner became inseparable from von Sievers while he was still married to Eunicke.) Steiner released his magnum opus, OCCULT SCIENCE - AN OUTLINE, in 1910, and three years later he broke away from Theosophy in order to establish his own occult movement, Anthroposophy. [31] He developed what, by his own estimate, was a large following: The movement was sufficiently well financed to build a large headquarters in Switzerland — and when this was destroyed by fire, the members erected an equally large replacement. [33] In 1919, a lionized spiritual leader, Steiner oversaw the creation of the first Waldorf school. [34] The rest is history. II. Curiosity about historical figures is natural and, to some extent, it can be productive. But we need to keep things in perspective. Our main focus should be on ideas, not on the people who express those ideas. Steiner may or may not have been a fine man; it doesn't make much difference. What we need to know is whether or not his ideas are true, and we can make this judgment only by focusing on his ideas and thinking about them carefully. I think Steiner was a fraud, pretending to possess clairvoyant powers that in fact he lacked (in all probability, no one possesses such powers). If I'm right, this is a marginally useful insight. However, it doesn't tell us anything conclusive about the quality of Steiner's ideas. A fraud may speak the truth, even if s/he does so unintentionally or unknowingly. A fraud may tell what s/he thinks are lies, but these statements may actually be pearls of great wisdom — the fraud just doesn't know it. The only way for us to know is to forget the speaker and attend to the speech, the words, the meaning. Anthroposophists sometimes think that the way to settle an issue is to find out what Steiner said on the subject. He said thus-and-so, which means that thus-and-so is the right answer. This is clearly the wrong approach. Maybe 99.9% of everything Steiner ever said was right, but if we happen to be arguing about the one matter where he was wrong, then taking his word on that subject would be a mistake. The same goes in reverse, of course. Even if 99.9% of Steiner's statements were garbage, we must remain open to the possibility that the next statement of his we consider will turn out to be — miraculously — correct. The only way to evaluate ideas is to focus on the ideas. Let's return our focus to the ideas that underlie Waldorf education: III. Perhaps the most fundamental problem with Waldorf schools is that the Waldorf conception of thinking and knowledge — epistemology, if you will — is so deeply irrational. Think of the implications of such irrationality for institutions that are usually meant to foster thinking and convey knowledge — schools. Waldorf schools often say that they encourage imagination — which is true, and many parents find this emphasis on imagination attractive. But in Steiner's doctrines, imagination is the first of three stages on the path to clairvoyance, and clairvoyance is the goal. Waldorf schools often conceal this (along with a great deal more), but this is central to their mission. The mission of any real Waldorf school — by which I mean any school that is faithful to the teachings of Rudolf Steiner — is to assist students along the path to clairvoyance. Accordingly, the schools try to prepare students for future human evolution, as described by Steiner. The next stage of our evolution will occur on or during Jupiter, followed by Venus and then Vulcan. As we undergo this evolution — following the "divine cosmic plan" created by the "gods" — we will attain higher and higher states of consciousness until we ourselves become gods. And the payoff?
I have just given you an extremely concise outline of the Anthroposophical vision. To most people, the Anthroposophical vision is nuts. (And to mainstream Christians, it is sacrilegious.) Unless a parent sees good solid sense in Anthroposophy, s/he should almost certainly not send a child to a real Waldorf school. Waldorfs do not turn all their students into junior Anthroposophists, of course, but the schools try to at least nudge students in the direction of Steinerish occultism. Remember Steiner's avowal:
The concepts of thinking and knowledge that inform Waldorf schools come mainly from Rudolf Steiner himself. We can see Steiner's epistemology, in its earliest and purest form, in his book THE PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM, particularly as Steiner revised it following his conversion to occultism. Here's another concise summary; in the fewest possible words, I’ll try to describe spiritual epistemology as Steiner and his followers came to understand it. At the core of oneself is a pure, authentic Self, an "I". When the "I" thinks about its own thoughts in a disciplined manner, the difference between subject and object vanishes and a higher, transcendent consciousness becomes possible. Bear in mind that true thoughts do not come from the brain but from the spirit realm. The "I" is a denizen of that realm and thus receives its true cognition from on high. The resulting consciousness consists of inherently authentic Truth. The labors of "materialistic" thinking (rational argumentation, etc.) become unnecessary because direct access to Truth has been attained. Certain problems obviously arise from this set of ideas. Consciousness focusing upon itself may not be a transcendence of subjectivity but the intensification of subjectivity. According to Steiner, truly knowing and truly feeling are the same: We must develop
This is the heartfelt "thinking" Waldorf schools try to promote; it is more akin to emotion or intuition than to rational cogitation. You know that something is true because it feels so true, deep inside. It rings your spiritual bell. Let’s dwell on that last point for a moment. How can one be sure that a Truth that feels so right, inwardly — a Truth provided by intuition — is not simply a subjective wish? Steiner saw the problem, and his answer was that "living thoughts" are implanted in us before we are born.
Thus, correct intuition is the apprehension of divinity and its gifts, living within us. We don't really need to think: All we have to do is commune with ourselves, finding the prepackaged "living thoughts" that we carry inside. Notice how Steiner's seemingly straightforward philosophical argument about the sources of knowledge balloons into an occult theology. In order for the thesis of PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM to be correct in the way Anthroposophy needs it to be correct, a vast body of occult belief becomes necessary, and Steiner provides this in thousands of occult lectures. Of course, according to Steiner, his doctrines are not beliefs but living thoughts, Truths. But they are "true" only because he defines them as true; they emerge from a form of consciousness that depends on them for its existence. This is a closed loop, one that cannot be examined by any outside observer. A living thought is any idea that is correctly revealed by intuition, and intuition is defined as the power to reveal living thoughts, which by definition are true. How do we test this? We "know" we are correctly using our intuition when the ideas it yields ring our bell — we get a “spiritual feeling” that is the same as “spiritual perception.” No one else can hear the bell, unfortunately, but that's how it goes. In other words, a self-affirmed "clairvoyant" may absolutely know in his/her heart that s/he is correct about something, but no one else can know — there is no way for an outsider observer to test a clairvoyant’s inwardly revealed “living thought.” And that’s okay, Steiner said. Testing and proving things, he explained, is beside the point.
The process of opening oneself to “living thoughts” is beyond testing because it is beyond “materialistic” or brain-centered thinking. By definition, intuition is living-thinking. which is clairvoyance, which is truth, and all’s well. Steiner did add one clarification. True intuition or living-thinking should not be confused with any old form of clairvoyance; there are higher and lower forms of clairvoyance. The real kind, the kind that yields the truest truths, is "exact" clairvoyance. Steiner had to specify what sort of clairvoyance is correct, since other "clairvoyants" said they "saw" things quite unlike what he "saw." So he laid down this stipulation. And what does it ultimately mean? “Exact clairvoyance" is clairvoyance that agrees with Steiner’s doctrines. By definition, all other forms of clairvoyance are, to one degree or another, incorrect. You may bridle at this, but hold your indignation. There is a deeper problem than trying to decide what form of clairvoyance is best. The problem is this: Does clairvoyance exist at all, in any form, at any level of exactitude? As far as we know, the answer is no. There is simply no evidence that any form of clairvoyance exists. [See “Clairvoyance”.] This leads to a crucial point. No outside observer can confirm anything that a "clairvoyant" feels to be true — and neither can the "clairvoyant." S/he may firmly feel that an idea is right, but there is no way s/he can know for sure. A deeply believed fantasy may feel just as right as any actually correct perception; and a pleasant hallucination may commend itself, powerfully, to one's heart. In fact, if someone yearns for spiritual truth, the "intuitive" fulfillment of that yearning may quite easily be nothing but the unconscious affirmation of the desire. You go in search of the vision you wish for, and you have that vision, and... And, what? If you have the vision you want, and if it "feels" the way you want, then you may have achieved nothing but self-deception. Instead of working your way toward true knowledge, you may only have been deluding yourself, feeding yourself the fantasy you so keenly desire. And what visions should you seek? Steiner stressed the need for a guru. A seeker
Notice that wording: "strictly rely." Absolute reliance. Obedience. Faith. The "science" Steiner advocated becomes, then, a religion — a process of faithful observance. So in this sense, too, the form of thought advocated by Steiner is not real thinking at all. You don't develop "living thoughts" out of your own brain. These "thoughts" are either prerecorded ideas that have been implanted in you before birth, or they are notions that your guru has directed you toward — or they are both. They are not, in any event, your own thoughts. They are not, really, thoughts at all. They are prescribed doctrines, or fantasies — or both. In their most august form, they are articles of faith. In their most debased, they are delusions. Where does this all leave us? What can we make of the epistemology underlying Waldorf schools — and what are the implications for Waldorf education? a) The epistemology is bogus. No one following Steiner's prescriptions can attain any verifiable knowledge — verifiable by others or even by oneself. b) Waldorf education is built on, and largely consists of, pipe dreams. It stresses a form of "thought" that is not thinking at all, but feeling, "intuiting," perhaps fantasizing. It, too, is bogus. — Roger Rawlings
Steiner taught that the demons Lucifer and Ahriman have hollowed out our skulls. Our "so-called noblest organ," the brain, is empty.
The Eighth Sphere is a demonic realm created by Lucifer and Ahriman. To perceive it, we require special new organs, organs of clairvoyance:
[For more on the terrible Eighth Sphere, see "Sphere 8".]
"At the present time thinking is the form in which man can bring his will to expression in speech. Today it is only in thinking that we can unfold the will. Only later will it be possible for man, rising above the level of thought, to unfold the will in speech.” [42] "Teaching concerning the spirit, the spiritual, will be dominant in the new race. And in the sphere of religion the ruling principle will be something that is not yet possible today, because the intellect lies in the way. Man will himself perceive the existence of a Divine World-Spirit. That is the free religious principle of the next race." [43] “Let now these intimations come To claim their rightful place, Supplanting thinking’s power....” [44]
In the endnotes to my essay "Thinking Cap", I attempted a summary of key points about the sort of "thinking" advocated by Rudolf Steiner — clairvoyance — and the Anthroposophical disparagement of rational thought. I'll reproduce it here, although it recycles some points we have probably covered sufficiently already. (Please forgive the style. It is somewhat telegraphic, as is common in endnotes.) — R.R. The existence of clairvoyance is extremely doubtful.
Whether psychic capacities might be developed in the future — through the growth of incorporeal organs or in any other manner — is a subject more suited to science fiction than to levelheaded discussions of reality. [See, e.g., Arthur C. Clarke, CHILDHOOD’S END.] It is not irrelevant to note that Steiner’s sources included fantasies such as the Rosicrucian novel ZANONI and the weird narratives of Norse mythology. [See, e.g., “Steiner’s ‘Science’” and “Oh My Word”.] The existence of organs of clairvoyance is more than doubtful. But Steiner's doctrines require one to develop such organs and then to exercise them in a certain, prescribed way. Mainly, this way requires tossing out critical intelligence and devotedly following gurus (i.e., in particular, Steiner). A seeker must "engender within himself this attitude of devotion." — Rudolf Steiner, WIE ERLANGT MAN ERKENNINISSE DER HOHEREN WELTEN?, p. 5; a seeker must submit to "inspired forerunners" (i.e., spiritual teachers, in particular, Steiner). — Rudolf Steiner, DIE STUFEN DER HOHEREN ERKENNISNIS (Dornach, 1935), p. 65. [Again, see http://waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Hansson.html.] Submitting in this manner is the opposite of thinking for oneself, exercising intellect, using one's critical intelligence. It is blind belief in occultism. [See "Guru".] Trying to reason with Anthroposophists is an interesting undertaking, but in many (if not all) cases it is doomed to failure. Good Anthroposophists heed Steiner's dictum: They must not employ critical thought in evaluating his statements.
Good adults should have a similar sense of veneration, at least for the people they have selected, somehow, to be their masters. The rejection of critical thought is stressed in the Waldorf school movement:
"Embracing enthusiastically" is what Waldorf students are taught to do. They may not (indeed, usually do not) understand what they are embracing, but they have been taught to embrace it anyway, freed from the "blight of critical thinking." Good adult Anthroposophists are often similarly enthusiastic and uncritical, which helps explain why they often get so riled up over criticism. [See "Criticism".] They aren't accustomed to such modes of thought. They frequently think that criticism means murderous, evil attack. This makes rational discourse difficult.
——— Despite Steiner’s claim that he appreciated the intellect, he generally associated it with evil. In Steiner’s theology, Ahriman is a dreadful demon. [See "Ahriman" and “Bad, Badder, Baddest”.] Ahriman’s cardinal evil attribute is that he is “the supreme intellectual power: Ahriman.” — Rudolf Steiner, NATURE SPIRITS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1995), p. 167. Ahriman’s fiendish plots include this:
Steiner taught that intellectual thought did not begin until 600-800 BC. It is, he said, a gift from Lucifer. [Rudolf Steiner, THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 117.] Ahriman, however, corrupted this gift.
We currently live in a materialistic age in which materialistic (intellectual) thinking prevails. Entering this phase, we surrendered our old clairvoyant capacities, but we will attain greater clairvoyance when we move forward in our evolution. This is well, since
The Waldorf curriculum is geared to the notion that children individually pass through the same phases that humanity has undergone collectively. Thus, students don’t develop intellectual abilities until they are well into their high school years, according to Steiner. We benefit from our current existence in a material realm where intellect is useful. We literally sharpen our wits, which can help us to sharpen our new, higher, "exact" clairvoyance when/if we develop it. But, ultimately, intellect is anathema for Steiner and his followers — critical thinking must be suppressed.
Steiner tells his followers,
[See http://waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Hansson.html.] If intellect is so awful, why does Steiner say it has any uses at all? He taught that we humans are currently passing through a stage of our evolution in which we need to master intellect before moving beyond it. He spoke of this evolutionary process in racial terms. We evolve upward by passing through higher and higher racial forms. Properly evolved humans currently are members of the fifth "subrace" of the fifth "root race."
Thus, we need to pass through a materialistic, intellectual period. But we also need to pass beyond it, having put behind us its snares and destructive powers. (Steiner traced the emergence of subraces in the fifth root race to the sinking of Atlantis. Yes, Atlantis. So much for "a culture of reason.")
We might do well to mediate upon a quotation we have already seen. "You will injure children if you educate them rationally." — Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 61. Acting upon this principle, Steiner designed Waldorf education to be irrational. Think about that for a while. Rationally.
[R.R. sketch, 2009, based on the sketch on p. 77.]
Supporters of Waldorf education often issue such invitations, seeking to build interest and community support. Media in small communities sometimes display these items as if they were objective news stories, when quite obviously they are not.* You may or may not find Waldorf education attractive, but do bear in mind the difference between objective information and advertising. The item quoted here, for instance, contains a number of highly questionable claims. Ponder the claim that Waldorf schools seek to develop children's "spiritual (secular) capacities." What, you might wonder, is meant by the very curious phrase "spiritual (secular)"? Anthroposophists wind up using such expressions because their belief system is a religion but one of its tenets is that it is not a religion. [See "Is Anthroposophy a Religion?"] Primarily for this reason, Waldorf schools almost always deny that they are religious institutions, although their principles and practices are based on Anthroposophy. So, even though Waldorf schools care very much about spirituality, they usually make the misleading claim that they are secular. The spiritual capacities emphasized in Waldorf schools boil down to the use of Anthroposophically approved forms of thought, such as imagination, to gain "knowledge" of spiritual matters. You might ask yourself if you think a "secular" school has any business trying to develop children's spiritual capacities — isn't this the job of churches, temples, mosques, and parents? In any event, if you select a Waldorf school for your child, you should know that the teachers there will have a spiritual agenda for the child. [See "Spiritual Agenda".] You should also know that the central "spiritual capacity" that Waldorf teachers, as Anthroposophists, attempt to develop is clairvoyance. [See "Clairvoyance".] If you do not share the many spiritual beliefs of Anthroposophists, including belief in clairvoyance, you may find Waldorf education alien and unacceptable — although, because the schools dissemble so well, reaching this realization may take a while. One more point. (We could discuss several other matters, but one more is probably sufficient for now.) Does Waldorf education really promote "critical thinking"? In a sense, yes. Anthroposophists certainly want Waldorf students to be critical of modern society, modern science, and modern technology. [See, e.g., "Steiner's 'Science'".] But, on the other hand, Waldorf schools rarely encourage critical thought directed at their own, Anthroposophical beliefs. Taking their lead from Rudolf Steiner, they generally consider the brain a relatively unimportant organ, and they sometimes go so far as to deem critical thinking a blight.** For them, truth comes primarily through clairvoyance and emotion, not critical thought. Whenever you read a glowing account of Waldorf education, you may want to consider the source, and certainly you should dig to get below the glowing surface. Perhaps you will still come away with a positive view of Waldorf schools. But perhaps you won't. ◊ **
Gardner was a Waldorf school headmaster and a leading American Anthroposophist.
 Buddha.
 The brain at work. Trust it not, Steiner cautioned. [A PET scan — Jens Langner.]
[R.R. sketch, 2009, based on image in the book.]
More items from the "news" page: I. From The Shelburne News, Shelburne, Vermont, USA:
Waldorf spokespeople have a long record of misleading the public. Waldorf education is not “backed by contemporary neuroscience” or any other present-day knowledge. Waldorf education is founded on an occult belief system concocted a century ago by the Austrian/German mystic Rudolf Steiner. At the risk of boring faithful readers, I will reprint a list of truthful statements describing the real nature of Waldorf education. All of the following statements were made by leading advocates of Waldorf education, including Rudolf Steiner himself. These are the sorts of admissions you can find if you dig; they are not the sorts of statements Waldorf spokesmen usually make when addressing the public at large:
 was born in 1935 and studied biology, chemistry, physics, and education. He is a professor of evolutionary biology at the university of Witten Herdecke and is widely viewed as an authority in his field." — SteinerBooks [http://steinerbooks.org/author.html?au=1368] Anthroposophical "research" is tendentious and misleading. It starts with a conclusion it desperately wants to affirm — the "truth" of Anthroposophy — and it bends every piece of information and every form of argumentation in this effort. The result is usually little more than illogical misinformation. Indeed, such "research" is rarely meant to break new ground; nor is it usually intended to persuade non-Anthroposophists. Rather, the goal (which may or may not be openly acknowledged) is to fortify Anthroposophists in the views they already hold. Steiner's followers are assured that, if they ignore all the other scholarship in the world and focus instead on narrowly contrived arguments provided by their fellow believers, they may feel justified in thinking that there is some rational, factual basis for their otherwise wholly unfounded convictions. As for the claim that Waldorf education is validated by “contemporary neuroscience” or any other genuine scholarship or research — no, it is not. Rudolf Steiner’s followers often do extensive “research” that consists of cherry-picking, raking through scholarly papers, news reports, and any and all other publications seeking any tidbit that might conceivably be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as providing tangential confirmation of Steiner’s teachings. But such “confirmation” is almost always illusory. Steiner taught, for example, that the heart does not pump blood. His followers try their best to substantiate this loopy falsehood, but of course they can’t. See, e.g., THE DYNAMIC HEART AND CIRCULATION (Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, 2002), edited by Craig Holdrege. It is another scholarly, carefully crafted book that ultimately makes no sense and has had essentially no influence outside the Anthroposophical cult. As for the brain, the head, and thinking, here are some of the statements Steiner and his followers have made. Consider how well they conform to the knowledge available through “contemporary neuroscience.”
Such bizarre, mystical views have a distinct — and damaging — impact on Waldorf education. Thus, according to Steiner, "You will injure children if you educate them rationally.” — Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 61. You should choose Waldorf education for your children only if you want them to have irrational schooling.
II. The following is currently presented at the Rudolf Steiner Archive under the heading “Anthroposophy News” even though the article contains no reference to Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner, or Waldorf education [February, 2013 http://www.rsarchive.org/]:
Anthroposophical “researchers” spend a great deal of time combing through press reports, scientific journals, and other sources seeking any tiny statement that could conceivably be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as supporting Anthroposophy. This generally produces irrational (not to say laughable) results. Thus, if new research indicates that science’s previous understanding of smell was incomplete, Rudolf Steiner’s followers grab this as proof that natural science is wholly wrong and, therefore, “spiritual science” is correct.* The reality, however, is quite different. When science takes a step forward, such as improving its understanding of smell, it almost invariably moves farther away from Steiner’s bizarre teachings. Science advances, and “spiritual science” recedes farther and farther into antiquated, medieval fallacy. If some of Rudolf Steiner's "scientific" teachings seemed plausible during his lifetime, they have become increasingly incredible as real science has advanced. To consider the nature of Steiner’s “spiritual science” you might, for instance, consult Sven Ove Hansson’s essay, “Is Anthroposophy Science?” [http://waldorfcritics.org/articles/Hansson.html]. ◊ * What did Steiner say about smell? He traced all sensory impressions, including smell, back to vibrations in the etheric realm. [See, e.g., Rudolf Steiner, EDUCATION FOR SPECIAL NEEDS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005), p. 57.] There is no scientific basis for this view. Science finds no evidence for the existence of the etheric realm (or the etheric body, or the ether...). Indeed, science find no evidence for most of the conditions, states, or objects Steiner discoursed upon.
You may scour scientific literature endlessly seeking valid substantiation for such a statement. You will find none.
III. Today, January 15, 2013, posted a link to the following BBC news item. The Archive categorized the item under the heading "Anthroposophy News":
This is an interesting news item. But it makes no mention of Anthroposophy, Rudolf Steiner, or Waldorf education. In what sense, then, does it qualify as "Anthroposophy News"? It doesn't qualify as such, of course. But the link at the Steiner Archive points up an interesting issue. Rudolf Steiner claimed, quite incorrectly, that his teachings are scientific. In reality, his teachings are profoundly antiscientific and irrational; there is virtually no factual basis for anything he said or taught. [See "Steiner's 'Science'" and "Steiner's Blunders".] But because Steiner claimed to be telling the factual, verifiable, "scientific" truth about all the matters he discussed, his followers have ever after sought any scintilla of scientific evidence that might conceivably be construed as a point in Steiner's favor. Thus, if a prevailing scientific theory is overturned, they rejoice. Aha!, they cry. Conventional science was wrong about X, Y, or Z. Therefore, conventional science is wrong altogether. And, therefore, Rudolf Steiner's "spiritual science" is correct instead! This, of course, is nonsense. As science progresses, old scientific theories are continually replaced by newer, better theories. Clearly, the process of scientific advancement does not mean that antiscientific fantasies such as Steiner's are true. Just the reverse, in fact. The more science advances — the more truths we learn — the more we can see that Rudolf Steiner's teachings are baseless. (Technically, the arguments Steiner's followers make in cases like this are examples of the logical fallacy called "appeal to ignorance."
Appeal to ignorance is a form of false argumentation that Steiner himself sometimes used. [See "Ignorance".] It can seem persuasive, if you don't think about it too hard. But it is a fallacy, nothing more.) Steiner himself sometimes acknowledged that his teachings, which he called "spiritual science" or "occult science," are at odds with conventional or "natural" science.
** What did Steiner say about prehistoric animals? Many interesting things. (This will give you a taste of Steiner's "science.") For instance, Steiner said that some dinosaurs were fire-breathing dragons.
Then again, Steiner told of huge lizards that, in the time before humanity moved to Atlantis (yes, Atlantis), flew around with lanterns on their heads.
Steiner's fallacious and damaging ideas, divorced from reality, represent grave potential danger to students sent to Waldorf schools. Children generally have enormous potential, fine minds, wonderful talents. They are capable of brilliance and beauty. They deserve the best educations we can give them. But how can a true education be based on such false precepts as that we do not think with our brains? Consider the damage that could be inflicted on children's minds by teachers who believe such occult nonsense.
◊◊◊
 Rudolf Steiner. [Rudolf Steiner, THE STORY OF MY LIFE (Kessinger Publishing, facsimile of 1928 edition, Anthroposophical Publishing Co.), facing p. 320.]
From a message posted by Peter Staudenmaier in early January, 2013: “Steiner...held that critical judgment ‘disperses the powers of the soul for the attainment of higher knowledge’ (Knowledge of Higher Worlds, 11). He said that teachers should ‘appeal to the formative forces of imagination and not to those of the intellect’ (Education of the Child, 46). According to Steiner, ‘Awe and reverence are awakened in children that forbid them to harbor any critical thoughts or opposition against the venerated person [i.e., the teacher]’ (Education of the Child, 58).”
 Clairvoyance, according to Steiner, is connected to feeling, subjective experience, imagination... These are states that science views askance, but Steiner affirmed them. This led him to make some remarkable statements. If Steiner was describing any real mental state, here — which is doubtful — I would be tempted to peg it as heatstroke producing delusions. [R.R. sketch, 2009, based on Steiner's on p. 191. The white area near the bottom is "solid" rock that one begins to penetrate, as shown in red. The red line crossing through the upper white areas also represent penetration by human consciousness.]
[R. R. sketch, 2009, based on Steiner's.] Even while disparaging brainwork, Steiner laid spurious claim to it. One of the great charms of his doctrines, for some people, is his claim that his "spiritual research" is scientific. He claimed, sometimes, that his doctrines are consistent with intellect, that indeed genuine science will support his descriptions of the universe. This is unfounded, and it flies in the face of his other statements about the value of intellect and "natural" science. He did, repeatedly, claim support from, and consistency with, intellect. But he also, often, undercut the claim even as he made it.
  Waldorf student paintings, courtesy of People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools. The art produced in Waldorf schools, much of it quite attractive, often reflects Steiner's description of the spirit realm as a place of color but not form, intensities but not extensions. [See "Magical Arts".] Waldorf students are generally not taught Steiner's doctrines directly, but indirectly these doctrines are conveyed in multiple ways. [See "Indoctrination" and "Sneaking It In".]
For more on science as conceived by Steiner, see "Steiner's 'Science'" and "Science". For more on "materialistic thinking" as conceived by Steiner, see "Materialism U".
 To visit other pages in this section of Waldorf Watch, use the underlined links, below. ◊◊◊ 13. RUDOLF STEINER ◊◊◊
The formatting at Waldorf Watch aims for visual variety, seeking to ease the process of reading lengthy texts on a computer screen. ◊ Some illustrations on the various pages here at Waldorf Watch are closely connected to the contents of those pages; others are not — they provide general context.
ENDNOTES [1] Rudolf Steiner, MYSTICISM AT THE DAWN OF THE MODERN AGE (Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1980) - introduction by Steiner. [2] Rudolf Steiner, THE SPIRITUAL HIERARCHIES AND THE PHYSICAL WORLD (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 224. [3] Ibid., p. 231. [4] Rudolf Steiner, “Atomism and its Refutation” (The Mercury Press, 1975). [5] Steiner called Anthroposophy “spiritual science.” He argued that forms of spiritual science have existed throughout human history, with Anthroposophy being the latest, highest form. [See, e.g., "Altogether".] Of course, he did not include spiritual science in the category of sciences that he deplored. [6] Maya is originally a Hindu concept, but it can also be found in Buddhism and other Eastern faiths. [7] Rudolf Steiner, THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN (Anthroposophic Press, 1948), XII. [8] Rudolf Steiner, METAMORPHOSES OF THE SOUL, Vol. 1 (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1983), lecture 8, GA 58. [9] See “Was He Christian?” [10] Rudolf Steiner, THE FESTIVALS AND THEIR MEANING (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996), p. 368. [11] See "Is Anthroposophy a Religion?” [12] Rudolf Steiner, THE STORY OF MY LIFE (Kessinger Publishing, 2003), p. 183. [13] THE FESTIVALS AND THEIR MEANING, pp. 147-148. [14] Anthroposophic News Sheet 22nd of January 1940 No. 3-4 (Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung, 1940), GA 254: “[T]his seems to be a condensed version of the three lectures comprising the series, ‘Significant Facts Pertaining to the Spiritual Life of the Middle of the XIXth Century.’” [15] Rudolf Steiner, “Realism and Nominalism”, January 27, 1923 (Rudolf Steiner Nachlassverwaltung, 1934), GA 220. [16] Rudolf Steiner, FOUNDATIONS OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE (SteinerBooks, 1996), p. 60. Perhaps people in Steiner’s day had some excuse for accepting his utterly bizarre statements about human organs, such as the brain and heart. Today, there is no excuse. (Concerning the heart:
[17] Rudolf Steiner, KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS AND ITS ATTAINMENT (Rudolf Steiner Publishing Co., 1944), pp. 27-28. [19] Goethe’s spiritualistic interests appealed to Steiner and were reflected in his own writings. Steiner agreed with Goethe that the inwardness of phenomena is at least as important as any outwardly verifiable qualities. What some would call mere subjectivity was, for Steiner, a portal into truth. During his time editing Magazin für Literatur, he wrote an essay on Goethe’s fairy tale, “The Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily”.
Barnes notes,
For Steiner on Steiner, see Rudolf Steiner, THE STORY OF MY LIFE (Kessigner Publishing, 2003; facsimile of 1928 edition) and Rudolf Steiner, AUTOBIOGRAPHY (Anthroposophical Press, 2006) — essentially the same book but with a useful chronology, pp. xvi-xxix, and an index, pp. 351-366. For sympathetic and/or balanced accounts of Steiner’s life, see Geoffrey Ahern, SUN AT MIDNIGHT (James Clarke & Co., 2009), Henry Barnes, A LIFE FOR THE SPIRIT (Anthroposophic Press, 1997), Gary Lachman, RUDOLF STEINER (Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2007), and Peter Washington, MADAME BLAVATSKY’S BABOON (Secker & Warburg, 1993). The last-named presents by far the most skeptical of these accounts. [20] Rudolf Steiner, AUTOBIOGRAPHY, pp. xvii-xviii. By Steiner’s own account, he became an occult initiate while still a boy. Anthroposophists accept this account.
Steiner claimed to have received a sort of double initiation.
Steiner generally kept his occult wisdom under wraps for many years after his "initiation." One interpretation is that his lips were sealed by the rules of the occult order he entered. Other interpretations are possible, of course. [21] Lachman, RUDOLF STEINER, p. 92. [22] Largely ignored, the book became scarce not long after its release and remained so for many years. An extensively revised, occultist version was released in 1918 by an Anthroposophical press. In his preface to that edition, Steiner wrote
The book has subsequently been published by Anthroposophical presses under varying titles, including INTUITIVE THINKING AS A SPIRITUAL PATH (Anthroposophic Press, 1995). As the publisher of that edition reports,
[23] Ahern, SUN AT MIDNIGHT, p. 31. Dates taken from Rudolf Steiner, AUTOBIOGRAPHY, p. xx. According to Henry Barnes,
[24] AUTOBIOGRAPHY, p. xx. [25] Peter Washington, MADAME BLAVATSKY’S BABOON, pp. 151-152. [26] Ibid., p. 152. Steiner’s relationships with other Theosophists were strained. Annie Besant, a leading Theosophist, had misgivings.
[27] Ahern, p. 35. [28] Barnes, A LIFE FOR THE SPIRIT, p. 80. Steiner was a secularist before his sudden conversion to Theosophy. Here, for instance, are comments he made about the occult movement he himself would soon join:
Note how Steiner's comments undercut his own later views, such as the emphasis he placed on inner experiences, and his opposition to what he called "natural" science — i.e., what he here calls "Western science." Note, too, that if Steiner was really and occult initiate from a young age, he was misrepresenting his real opinions in the magazine article quoted here. The question becomes, at what point — if any — was Steiner telling the truth? [29] AUTOBIOGRAPHY, p. xxii.
Marie’s family name is given variously as Sivers and Sievers. [30] Ahern, p. 36. [31] AUTOBIOGRAPHY, pp. xxiii-xxv. [32] Rudolf Steiner, RUDOLF STEINER IN THE WALDORF SCHOOL (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 156. [33] From the chronology in the Anthroposophical Press edition of Steiner's autobiography:
The first Goetheanum burned at the end of 1922. Work on the new building began soon, but it was not completed until after Steiner’s death in 1925. [34] Ibid., p. xxvi. [35] Rudolf Steiner, THE LORD’S PRAYER (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2007), p. 17. [36] Rudolf Steiner, FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER (Anthroposophic Press, 1998), p. 495. [37] Rudolf Steiner, THE FESTIVALS AND THEIR MEANING (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996), pp. 248. [38] Rudolf Steiner, CURATIVE EDUCATION (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1972), lecture 2, GA 317. [39] Rudolf Steiner, DEEPER INSIGHTS INTO EDUCATION (Anthroposophic Press, 1983), p. 29. [40] Rudolf Steiner, THE TENSION BETWEEN EAST AND WEST (Anthroposophic Press, 1983), p. 40. [41] Rudolf Steiner, AT THE GATES OF SPIRITUAL SCIENCE (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1986), p. 156. [42] Rudolf Steiner, FOUNDATIONS OF ESOTERICISM (Rudolf Steiner Press 1982), lecture 5, GA 93a. [43] Rudolf Steiner, APOCALYPTIC WRITINGS (transcript, Rudolf Steiner Archive), lecture 1, GA not specified. We must be cautious about accepting quotations found in transcripts of uncertain provenance. But the quotation I have given certainly reflects Steiner's teachings. Consider the following, which is a close variant:
The idea that we evolve into new racial forms stems from Steiner's Theosophical phase.
[44] Rudolf Steiner, THE ILLUSTRATED CALENDAR OF THE SOUL (Temple Lodge Publishing, 2004), meditation #7.
 [R.R., 2017.] |
