Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:37, 3 July 2006

Please leave your message at the bottom of the page. Duncharris 16:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Archives

Archives of old discussions:

One / Two / Three / Four / Five / Six / Seven / Eight / Nine / Ten

Misunderstanding of spiritual science

Philosophers such as Dilthey and Husserl advocated recognizing that there can be sciences (they used the term "Geisteswissenschaften", sciences of the mind/spirit/human being) that are not empirically based in outer perception, and yet are fully scientific. (The Misplaced Pages article on Dilthey mentions this briefly.) Steiner was also part of this (largely Germanic) philosophical tradition, and called anthroposophy a "Geisteswissenschaft" (human study, but literally spiritual science), not a "Naturwissenschaft" (natural science). Philosophers grounded in the German tradition will certainly comprehended the distinction.

Geisteswissenschaft is the standard German term for what English-speaking peoples call the humanities. Dilthey, Husserl and Steiner were thus calling what they did by the same name as the humanities generally go by in German, and what Dilthey defended as the "humane sciences": though neither quantitative nor empirical in the same sense as the natural sciences, yet qualitatively exact and rational. In his late period (cf. The Crisis of the European Sciences), Husserl used the word Geisteswissenschaft to refer to an explicitly spiritual science, not just the humanities generally; Steiner also follows this usage. All of these thinkers believed that the natural sciences should not claim a monopoly on scientific approach; though the humane sciences would not copy their quantitative empiricism, they would still have a valid claim to the term 'scientific'.

Perhaps a completely different terminology would have to be found in English for this to be readily comprehensible to English-speakers. However, one usual translation — the almost exclusive one for Steiner's work — is "spiritual science". To declare these philosophers' work pseudoscientific is badly to misconstrue their cultural context. They are not claiming it to be natural science. Hgilbert 00:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

:*(

Sad day. Guettarda 18:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, Christiano Ronaldo is a wanker, we won't get any favours from a Argentine referee, but we were never going to score any anyway, even with the boy wonder on the pitch. Might end up supporting Germany as the only Northern European team left now. We're still world champions at rugby and have the ashes. — Dunc|☺ 18:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Cornuke

Some Cornuke supporter, cornuke himself?, is making a bunch of incorrect claims. --Cornukechecker 21:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant!

Wit. KillerChihuahua 20:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on Simetrical's RfA.

I'd like to see you returning to this RfA to give reasoning for your "vote". I don't believe it is polite, civil or acceptable to give an expression of opposition to an RfA with the reasoning "No.". This is exceptionally rude, and I'd like to see some reasoning - rudeness aside, your vote is likely to be discounted if it fails to provide reasoning. Werdna (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I opposed, as is my right. Your own RFA failed, perhaps for similar reasons. — Dunc|☺ 08:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)