Freedom - Revision history

Odyssee: /* Freedom and choice */

2021-11-05T08:02:47Z

Freedom and choice

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:02, 5 November 2021
Line 284:		Line 284:
	A person who does not submit to God's will shall be destroyed in the future (or roasted for eternity in hell fire), so the saying goes, the truth of which may well be open to doubt, for the statement contradicts both freedom as well love - from God's will.		A person who does not submit to God's will shall be destroyed in the future (or roasted for eternity in hell fire), so the saying goes, the truth of which may well be open to doubt, for the statement contradicts both freedom as well love - from God's will.

	{{GZ\|The 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' states that mortal sin applies to certain offences, while atonement through confession is possible for other sins. Let us assume, then, that a mortal sin exists, that someone has become guilty of it and that his path must now lead inevitably to eternal hell and damnation. Let us assume that this is a murderer who now sits in prison. For him divine mercy has been forfeited, it is therefore no longer within his reach. But with what prospects should this person approach his release? Should he say to himself, it's no use anyway, so I don't want to improve and go on killing as soon as I am given the opportunity again? This approach is also completely wrong from the perspective of prison pastoral care: mortal sins cannot and must not exist as long as a person is still capable of learning and improving. The declaration of an act as a mortal sin constitutes a deterministic prognosis. A deterministic prognosis is nothing more than a belief in the future appropriacy to reality of the hypothesis that precedes it. Through a strictly deterministic prognosis, however, any freedom for all future is taken, a principle of constancy of human action is established, which, however, in the end means no longer being able to learn (anew). Future learning ability, however, cannot be ruled out for any human being. ‘This proves by way of an argumentum a contrario that the principle of constancy cannot apply in the context of human action: If it were valid, this would mean that one cannot learn - but that one can learn that one cannot learn cannot be asserted without having already contradicted oneself.’<ref>H.-H. Hoppe, "Kritik der kausalwissenschaftlichen Sozialforschung", Opladen 1983, p. 10ff</ref> Did not Faust also become guilty through unfortunate circumstances, and is he not nevertheless forgiven all guilt on his deathbed, because Faust repents? One can also clearly see Goethe's attack on overly simplistic ecclesiastical moral concepts: ‘Whoever seeks to strive, we can save’. In this way, Goethe underlines the all-important moment of freedom of the human being even in the last moment before death. Analogous passages are found in the New Testament: Luke 23:43 and John 8:11.		{{LZ\|The 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' states that mortal sin applies to certain offences, while atonement through confession is possible for other sins. Let us assume, then, that a mortal sin exists, that someone has become guilty of it and that his path must now lead inevitably to eternal hell and damnation. Let us assume that this is a murderer who now sits in prison. For him divine mercy has been forfeited, it is therefore no longer within his reach. But with what prospects should this person approach his release? Should he say to himself, it's no use anyway, so I don't want to improve and go on killing as soon as I am given the opportunity again? This approach is also completely wrong from the perspective of prison pastoral care: mortal sins cannot and must not exist as long as a person is still capable of learning and improving. The declaration of an act as a mortal sin constitutes a deterministic prognosis. A deterministic prognosis is nothing more than a belief in the future appropriacy to reality of the hypothesis that precedes it. Through a strictly deterministic prognosis, however, any freedom for all future is taken, a principle of constancy of human action is established, which, however, in the end means no longer being able to learn (anew). Future learning ability, however, cannot be ruled out for any human being. ‘This proves by way of an argumentum a contrario that the principle of constancy cannot apply in the context of human action: If it were valid, this would mean that one cannot learn - but that one can learn that one cannot learn cannot be asserted without having already contradicted oneself.’<ref>H.-H. Hoppe, "Kritik der kausalwissenschaftlichen Sozialforschung", Opladen 1983, p. 10ff</ref> Did not Faust also become guilty through unfortunate circumstances, and is he not nevertheless forgiven all guilt on his deathbed, because Faust repents? One can also clearly see Goethe's attack on overly simplistic ecclesiastical moral concepts: ‘Whoever seeks to strive, we can save’. In this way, Goethe underlines the all-important moment of freedom of the human being even in the last moment before death. Analogous passages are found in the New Testament: Luke 23:43 and John 8:11.

	It becomes clear: without complete freedom of action for good and evil (see also the paradise myth), there would be no real freedom of choice between good and evil. This, then, is the good of evil, that it makes human freedom of choice possible in the first place through its (negative) offer.\|Michael Heinen-Anders, Dem Teufel auf der Spur, p. 12 - 13}}		It becomes clear: without complete freedom of action for good and evil (see also the paradise myth), there would be no real freedom of choice between good and evil. This, then, is the good of evil, that it makes human freedom of choice possible in the first place through its (negative) offer.\|Michael Heinen-Anders, Dem Teufel auf der Spur, p. 12 - 13}}

Odyssee at 06:47, 5 November 2021

2021-11-05T06:47:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:47, 5 November 2021
Line 249:		Line 249:

	But with this, the will is also illuminated with the thoughts consciously created in full freedom from the spirit. What is thus drawn from the spirit flows in full surrender through our actions into the outer world, for it is necessarily in the nature of the spirit to give itself away -- but this is nothing other than pure love. Spirit is love in its most perfect form.		But with this, the will is also illuminated with the thoughts consciously created in full freedom from the spirit. What is thus drawn from the spirit flows in full surrender through our actions into the outer world, for it is necessarily in the nature of the spirit to give itself away -- but this is nothing other than pure love. Spirit is love in its most perfect form.

			{{GZ\|You see, we become more and more inward when we send our own strength as will into thinking, by letting thinking, as it were, be completely irradiated by the will. We bring the will into thinking and thereby attain freedom. We attain this by developing our actions more and more, by carrying thoughts into these actions. We irradiate our actions, which come from our will, with our thoughts. On the one hand, inwardly, we live a life of thought: we radiate this with the will and thus find freedom. On the other hand, outwardly, our actions flow from us out of the will; we pervade them with our thoughts.

			[[File:GA202 204 en.gif\|center\|400px\|Freedom and Love, Plate 19 (GA 202, S 204)]]

			But how do our actions become more and more developed? By what means, if we want to use the disputable expression, do we arrive at ever more perfect action? - We actually achieve ever more perfect action by developing that power within ourselves which cannot be called anything else than devotion to the outer world. The more our devotion to the outer world grows, the more this outer world stimulates us to action. Thus by finding our way towards devotion to the outer world, we come to penetrate with thought that which lies in our action. What is devotion to the outer world? Devotion to the outer world, which permeates us, which permeates our actions with thoughts, is nothing other than love.

			Just as we come to freedom through the irradiation of the thought-life with the will, so we come to love through permeating the will-life with thoughts. We develop love in our actions by letting thoughts radiate into what is according to the will; we develop freedom in our thinking by letting what is according to the will radiate into the thoughts. And since we as human beings are a wholeness, a totality, when we come to find freedom in the life of thought and love in the life of will, freedom will co-operate in our actions and love in our thinking. They radiate through each other, and we carry out an action, a thoughtful action in love, a willful thinking, out of which in turn arises the action in freedom.\|202\|203ff}}

			Schiller says on the subject: "To love is to set free."

			{{LZ\|In the field of tension between spirit and matter and in the awareness of the limits of his existence, man is the embodied capacity for freedom. The life current from the past is transformed in him into the light of knowledge, the creative current from the future into the love of devoted action. -- Love conceived in this sense can only arise from freedom.\|Christoph J. Hueck, p. 211}}

			True love is only possible out of freedom. Christ's command to love one another is a commandment, but it is a commandment to the "free man", which general humanity has yet to develop. This interrelationship of freedom and love has been thematised in the context of the discussion on the doctrine of predestination, etc.

			What Schiller said must surely apply the other way round: to be free is to love.

			=== Freedom and Love as the path to Michael and Christ ===

			{{GZ\|By feeling himself as a free being in Michael’s proximity, man is on his way to carrying the strength of intellectuality into his ‘whole person’; he thinks, albeit, with his head, but the heart feels the light or darkness of thought; the will radiates the being of man by having thoughts flowing into it as intentions. The human being becomes evermore human by becoming an expression of the world; he finds himself by not searching for himself, but by benignly uniting himself with the world in love.

			Through unfolding his freedom by falling into Ahriman’s temptations, man is drawn into intellectuality, like into a spiritual automatism in which he is a member, no longer himself. All his thinking becomes an experience of the head; the head alone separates it from his own heart life and will life and extinguishes his own being. Man loses more and more of his inner, essential human expression when becoming the expression of his selfhood; he loses himself by seeking himself; he withdraws from the world which he refuses love; but man only experiences himself true when he loves the world.

			From what has been described, it is clear how Michael is the guide to Christ. Michael goes through the world with all the seriousness of his being, his attitude, his actions in love. Whoever adheres to him cultivates love in relation to the outer world. And love in relation to the outer world must first develop, otherwise it becomes self-love.

			Once this love in the Michael ethos is present, then love for the other will also be able to radiate back into one’s own self. This will be able to love without loving itself. And on the paths of such love, Christ is to be found through the human soul.\|26\|117f}}

			== Freedom and choice ==

			From certain points of view, freedom of choice also needs to be discussed. Is this only a special aspect of freedom, or would freedom essentially be freedom of choice?

			When man is faced with the alternative: "Eat or die bird", as the saying goes: Where is the freedom in that? Those who do not conform to God's will are threatened with destruction, and even eternal hellfire. Where is there freedom?

			A person who does not submit to God's will shall be destroyed in the future (or roasted for eternity in hell fire), so the saying goes, the truth of which may well be open to doubt, for the statement contradicts both freedom as well love - from God's will.

			{{GZ\|The 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' states that mortal sin applies to certain offences, while atonement through confession is possible for other sins. Let us assume, then, that a mortal sin exists, that someone has become guilty of it and that his path must now lead inevitably to eternal hell and damnation. Let us assume that this is a murderer who now sits in prison. For him divine mercy has been forfeited, it is therefore no longer within his reach. But with what prospects should this person approach his release? Should he say to himself, it's no use anyway, so I don't want to improve and go on killing as soon as I am given the opportunity again? This approach is also completely wrong from the perspective of prison pastoral care: mortal sins cannot and must not exist as long as a person is still capable of learning and improving. The declaration of an act as a mortal sin constitutes a deterministic prognosis. A deterministic prognosis is nothing more than a belief in the future appropriacy to reality of the hypothesis that precedes it. Through a strictly deterministic prognosis, however, any freedom for all future is taken, a principle of constancy of human action is established, which, however, in the end means no longer being able to learn (anew). Future learning ability, however, cannot be ruled out for any human being. ‘This proves by way of an argumentum a contrario that the principle of constancy cannot apply in the context of human action: If it were valid, this would mean that one cannot learn - but that one can learn that one cannot learn cannot be asserted without having already contradicted oneself.’<ref>H.-H. Hoppe, "Kritik der kausalwissenschaftlichen Sozialforschung", Opladen 1983, p. 10ff</ref> Did not Faust also become guilty through unfortunate circumstances, and is he not nevertheless forgiven all guilt on his deathbed, because Faust repents? One can also clearly see Goethe's attack on overly simplistic ecclesiastical moral concepts: ‘Whoever seeks to strive, we can save’. In this way, Goethe underlines the all-important moment of freedom of the human being even in the last moment before death. Analogous passages are found in the New Testament: Luke 23:43 and John 8:11.

			It becomes clear: without complete freedom of action for good and evil (see also the paradise myth), there would be no real freedom of choice between good and evil. This, then, is the good of evil, that it makes human freedom of choice possible in the first place through its (negative) offer.\|Michael Heinen-Anders, Dem Teufel auf der Spur, p. 12 - 13}}

			== Different conceptual distinctions ==

			=== Freedom of choice and freedom of design ===

			Freedom of choice can be distinguished from freedom of design. Freedom of design goes beyond choosing (Judgement of Paris) between alternatives, insofar as there are no specific, predetermined alternatives, but rather that these emerge from the will. When the artist applies the chisel to the block of plaster, each stroke is indeed chosen, but from an infinity of alternatives determined only by the idea of what is to be created, and by the peculiarities of the material. The normal human being differs from the artist only through less perfection of the clarity of the idea to be executed and of knowledge of the material, of mastery of the tools, and so on.

			=== Self-design ===

			In contrast to freedom of choice, there is the freedom to be oneself (autonomy). This is already inherent in animals. An animal is free if it can live out its nature freely, as it is, in an appropriate environment. This can be seen today in the rich variety of possible forms in flora and fauna. (This is taken into consideration in animal welfare, for example.) In humans, there is additionally the freedom to determine their own nature, the freedom to shape themselves. This is analogous to artistic creation.<ref>Cf. Herbert Witzenmann: ''Die Philosophie der Freiheit als Grundlage künstlerischen Schaffens''</ref> The world dichotomies such as those between concept and perception, spirit and matter, as well as between good and evil (to the extent that man is a moral being), are insofar only prerequisites for this human freedom to determine himself in his form, which integrates itself harmoniously into the whole in an individual way in an ongoing process and thereby enrichening it.

			=== Processes of decomposition and free action ===

			Rudolf Steiner has repeatedly shown that we only become aware of thoughts that are tied to the senses by the fact that thought is reflected in the nervous system. Sensual thoughts are therefore pure mirror images without independent reality and consequently also without causal impact. Because, as mere mirror images, they are not subject to the necessity of nature, they form the precondition of freedom. On the other hand, there are thoughts of action that are conceived out of moral imagination in pure thought, free from the senses. They have no imaginative character, but are of a volitional nature. They are not reflected in the nervous system, and therefore do not cause any processes of decomposition and do not fade into mirror images, but rather act as real living constructive processes. By these acting on the processes of decomposition, free action comes into being.

			{{GZ\|Keep in mind that in public lectures as well as here I have, in the most varied contexts, emphasised again and again with a certain intensity that we can only understand correctly what we call ideas if we relate them to our bodily organism in such a way that, underlying the ideas, we do not see something growing and flourishing in the body, but just the opposite, something dying, something partially dying in the body. I expressed this in a public lecture in such a way that I said: Man is actually always dying into his nervous system. The nervous process is such that it must confine itself to the nervous system. For if it were to extend over the whole organism, if the same thing were to happen in the whole organism as happens in the nerves, this would mean man’s death at every moment. One can say: ideas arise where the organism breaks itself down, we are continually dying into our nervous system. This makes it necessary for spiritual science to pursue not only those processes which today's natural science regards as the only authoritative ones: the ascending processes. These ascending processes -- they are growth processes -- still culminate in the unconscious. Only when the organism begins with descending processes does that activity of the soul occur within the organism which can be described as the activity of imagination, even as the activity of sensory perception. This process of decomposition, this process of dying, must be present if there is to be any imagining at all.

			Now I have shown that the free action of man is based precisely on the fact that man is in the position to seek the impulses for his action out of pure thoughts. These pure thoughts will have the greatest influence on the processes of decomposition in the human organism. What actually happens when a human being carries out a free action? Let us make it clear to ourselves what happens in the ordinary physical human being when he acts out of moral imagination -- you now know what I mean by this -- out of moral imagination, that is, out of a thinking which is not dominated by sensory impulses, sensory urges and affects, what actually happens to the human being? What then happens is that he gives himself over to pure thoughts; these form his impulses. They cannot impel him through themselves; he must impel himself, for they are mere mirror images, as we have emphasised. They belong to Maja. Mirror images cannot compel, man must compel himself under the influence of pure ideas.

			What is the effect of pure ideas? They have the strongest effect on the process of decomposition in the human organism. On the one hand, the process of decomposition comes out of the organism; on the other hand, to counteract this process of decomposition, pure deed-thought comes out of the spiritual life. By this I mean the thought which underlies the deed. Through the union of the two, through the interaction of the process of decomposition and the deed-thought, free action comes into being.

			I said that the process of decomposition is not brought about by pure thinking; it is there anyway, it is actually always there. If, through pure thinking, man does not oppose this process of decomposition, especially the most important processes of decomposition in him, it remains a process of decomposition, then the process of decomposition is not transformed into a process of construction, then a dying part remains in man. If you think this through, you will see that there is the possibility that man, precisely by refraining from free actions, does not abolish a death process within himself. Therein lies one of the most subtle thoughts that man needs to absorb. Whoever understands this thought can no longer doubt the existence of human freedom in life. For an action that happens out of freedom does not happen through something that is caused in the organism, but where the causes stop, namely out of a process of decomposition. Something must underlie the organism where the causes cease, only then can the pure idea intervene as a motive for action. But such processes of decomposition are always there; they only remain, as it were, unused when man does not carry out free actions.

			What lies at the bottom of this, however, bears witness to the characteristics of an age which is not willed to understand the idea of freedom in its fullest extent. The second half of the nineteenth century, the twentieth century up to our own time, this epoch has virtually set itself the task of increasingly clouding the idea of freedom for knowledge in all areas of life, of actually eliminating it for practical life. Freedom was not to be understood, freedom was not to be had. Philosophers have endeavoured to prove that everything arises with a certain necessity out of human nature. Certainly, necessity underlies human nature, but this necessity ceases when processes of decomposition begin, in which causal relationships come to their end. When freedom has intervened where necessity ceases in the organism, then one cannot say that human actions arise from inner necessity; they emerge from him only then when this necessity ceases. The entire error consisted in the fact that one was not willing to understand not only the constructive processes in the human organism, but also the processes of decomposition.\|179\|122ff}}

	== Literature ==		== Literature ==

Odyssee at 06:02, 5 November 2021

2021-11-05T06:02:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:02, 5 November 2021
Line 235:		Line 235:

	The sense of responsibility of a human personality can never be decided other than according to a profound knowledge of the human being. The question of freedom in connection with the question of responsibility is precisely one of the deepest imaginable.\|318\|45ff}}		The sense of responsibility of a human personality can never be decided other than according to a profound knowledge of the human being. The question of freedom in connection with the question of responsibility is precisely one of the deepest imaginable.\|318\|45ff}}

			== Freedom and love ==

			The fact that freedom and love are inseparably connected to each other was already emphasised quite decisively by Rudolf Steiner in his introductions to Goethe's Natural Scientific Writings ([[GA 1]], 1884-1897):

			{{GZ\|We know that the world of ideas is infinite perfection itself; we know that with it the impulses of our action lie within us; and consequently we must acknowledge as ethical only such action in which the deed flows solely from the idea of itself, which lies within us. From this perspective, man performs an action only because its reality is a need for him. He acts because an inner (own) urge, not an external power, drives him. The object of his action, as soon as he forms a concept of it, fulfils him in such a way that he strives to realise it. In the need for realisation of an idea, in the urge to form an intention, should also be the only impulse of our action. Everything that urges us to act should live itself out in the idea. We do not act out of duty, we do not act according to an instinct, we act out of love for the object to which our action is to extend. The object, in that we conceive it, evokes in us the urge for an appropriate action towards it. Such an action is solely a free one. For if, in addition to the interest we take in the object, there were a second, a different reason, then we would not want this object for its own sake, we would want another and realise that which we do not want; we would perform an action against our will. This would be the case, for example, when acting out of egoism. Here we take no interest in the action itself; it is not a need for us, but rather the benefit it brings us. But then, at the same time, we also feel it as compulsion, having to perform that action only for the sake of this end. It is not a need in itself; for we would refrain from it if it did not entail the benefit. But an act which we do not perform out of its own sake is an unfree act. Egoism acts unfree. Indeed, every person who performs an action for a reason that does not follow from the objective content of the action itself acts unfree. To perform an action out of its own sake is to act out of love. Only he who is guided by love of action, by devotion to objectivity, acts truly free. He who is incapable of this selfless devotion will never be able to regard his act as a free one.\|1\|202f}}

			As long as we are committed to the outer world with our thinking, we must follow its laws and are therefore, insofar as we allow ourselves to be guided by it in our actions, unfree. We become free when, completely detached from the outer world, we grasp thoughts in pure inner spiritual experience and radiate them with our will. Pure, i.e. sensory-free thinking is at the same time active as pure creative will.

			{{GZ\|If we take up thoughts from the outer physical-sensory world -- and we can only take up such thoughts between birth and death -- then, as you can easily see, we thereby become unfree, for we are given to the interrelationships of the outer world; we must then think as the outer world prescribes, in so far as we only take in the thought-content; only in the inner processing do we become free.

			Now a possibility does exist of becoming entirely free, of becoming free in one's inner life, if one excludes the thought-content, in so far as it comes from without, more and more, and vigorously activates the will-element which in judging, in drawing conclusions, shines through our thoughts. This, however, puts our thinking into that state which I have called pure thinking in my ‘Philosophy of Freedom’. We think, but only will lives in thinking. I emphasised this particularly sharply in the new edition of the ‘Philosophy of Freedom’ in 1918. That which lives within us, lives in the sphere of thinking. But once it has become pure thinking, it can just as well be spoken of as pure will. So that we rise from thinking to the will, when we become inwardly free, that our thinking becomes so mature, so to speak, that it is completely permeated by the will, no longer absorbs the external, but lives in the will. But it is precisely by strengthening the will in our thinking, more and more, that we prepare ourselves for what I have called in the ‘Philosophy of Freedom’ the moral imagination, but which rises to the moral intuitions that then radiate through and pervade our will that has become thought or our thought that has become will. In this way we lift ourselves out of physical-sensual necessity, radiate through ourselves that which is our own and prepare ourselves for moral intuition. And through such moral intuitions all that can fulfil man from the spiritual world is based. It comes alive then, that what freedom is, when in our very thinking we let the will become more and more powerful.\|202\|201f}}

			But with this, the will is also illuminated with the thoughts consciously created in full freedom from the spirit. What is thus drawn from the spirit flows in full surrender through our actions into the outer world, for it is necessarily in the nature of the spirit to give itself away -- but this is nothing other than pure love. Spirit is love in its most perfect form.

	== Literature ==		== Literature ==

Odyssee: /* Freedom of thought and moral autonomy */

2021-10-28T06:44:57Z

Freedom of thought and moral autonomy

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:44, 28 October 2021
Line 69:		Line 69:
	Man is free in so far as he is able to obey himself in every moment of his life. A moral deed is my deed only if it can be called a free one in this sense.\|4\|164}}		Man is free in so far as he is able to obey himself in every moment of his life. A moral deed is my deed only if it can be called a free one in this sense.\|4\|164}}

	Thus, in Steiner's sense, [[moral autonomy]], [[ethical individualism]] and a thoroughgoing [[tolerance]] in the interplay of man, society and the world are established. The prerequisite for this is to [[love]] what one does out of insight, i.e. to identify oneself in free devotion with what one is doing while respecting social and natural conditions. From this follows the [[~~fundamental~~ maxim of free people]], which [[Rudolf Steiner]] formulated in his “[[Philosophy of Freedom]]”:		Thus, in Steiner's sense, [[moral autonomy]], [[ethical individualism]] and a thoroughgoing [[tolerance]] in the interplay of man, society and the world are established. The prerequisite for this is to [[love]] what one does out of insight, i.e. to identify oneself in free devotion with what one is doing while respecting social and natural conditions. From this follows the [[basic maxim of free people]], which [[Rudolf Steiner]] formulated in his “[[Philosophy of Freedom]]”:

	{{GZ\|To ''live'' in love towards our actions, and to ''let live'' in the understanding of the other’s will, is the ~~fundamental~~ maxim of free men.\|4\|166}}		{{GZ\|To ''live'' in love towards our actions, and to ''let live'' in the understanding of the other’s will, is the basic maxim of free men.\|4\|166}}

	Rudolf Steiner offered an in-depth presentation of his thoughts on freedom in his fundamental philosophical writings at the beginning of his public literary activity in "[[The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe’s World Conception]]" ([[CW 2]]), "[[Truth and Knowledge]]" ([[CW 3]]), and in "[[The Philosophy of Freedom]]" ([[CW 4]]), and later -- after decades of experience gained through dealing with the path of knowledge conceived in his early works and after the realisation of the idea of freedom in regard to the forces of consciousness within the world-view systems and the increasing universality of individual thought in humanity had undergone a long development -- in his writing "[[The Riddles of Philosophy]]" ([[CW 18]]).		Rudolf Steiner offered an in-depth presentation of his thoughts on freedom in his fundamental philosophical writings at the beginning of his public literary activity in "[[The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe’s World Conception]]" ([[CW 2]]), "[[Truth and Knowledge]]" ([[CW 3]]), and in "[[The Philosophy of Freedom]]" ([[CW 4]]), and later -- after decades of experience gained through dealing with the path of knowledge conceived in his early works and after the realisation of the idea of freedom in regard to the forces of consciousness within the world-view systems and the increasing universality of individual thought in humanity had undergone a long development -- in his writing "[[The Riddles of Philosophy]]" ([[CW 18]]).

Odyssee at 06:12, 28 October 2021

2021-10-28T06:12:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:12, 28 October 2021
Line 8:		Line 8:
	And if he were born in chains.		And if he were born in chains.

	<small>[[w:Friedrich Schiller\|Friedrich Schiller]]: ''[https://www.deutschelyrik.de/die-worte-des-glaubens.339.html\|Die Worte des Glaubens]'' (German)</small>		<small>[[w:Friedrich Schiller\|Friedrich Schiller]]: ''[https://www.deutschelyrik.de/die-worte-des-glaubens.339.html Die Worte des Glaubens]'' (German)</small>
	</poem>		</poem>

Odyssee: /* Freedom requires the balance of spirit and nature */

2021-10-27T13:41:10Z

Freedom requires the balance of spirit and nature

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:41, 27 October 2021
Line 226:		Line 226:
	Of decisive importance for free will is the right balance between spirit and nature:		Of decisive importance for free will is the right balance between spirit and nature:

	"You know, my dear friends, how sour it becomes a man to grasp an idea which is actually self-evident to the unprejudiced man, and which is denied because the intellect of the philosophers cannot embrace it: the idea of free will. I said about the sensations: the things that are written in the physiologies and psychologies seem childish to those who see through things. But what is said about the idea of free will, even more so. For you must bear in mind that the free decision of will is at every moment an effect of the whole human being; of the whole human being, as it presents itself healthy or ill or half-sick or over-healthy, in the free impulse of will. In the free impulse of will lies the whole human being, but with all that can be seen in the whole human being, with all its complications. One only gets to know human nature when one learns to recognise it in this complication. And you see, that which in abnormal personalities assumes an abnormal shade towards one side or the other is abolished, united in harmony in every human being. It is a trivial saying, but it is true: just as man is accessible to the Cherubim, so is he accessible to the devil. And also these processes where man is accessible to the devil - we will study them yet. But all this also exists in the ordinary human being, only that the opposite activities cancel each other out, because they develop equally strongly in the most different directions. If there is an Angel in everyone, there is also a devil in everyone. But if the Angel and the devil are equally strong for something, then they cancel each other out.		{{GZ\|You know, my dear friends, how sour it becomes a man to grasp an idea which is actually self-evident to the unprejudiced man, and which is denied because the intellect of the philosophers cannot embrace it: the idea of free will. I said about the sensations: the things that are written in the physiologies and psychologies seem childish to those who see through things. But what is said about the idea of free will, even more so. For you must bear in mind that the free decision of will is at every moment an effect of the whole human being; of the whole human being, as it presents itself healthy or ill or half-sick or over-healthy, in the free impulse of will. In the free impulse of will lies the whole human being, but with all that can be seen in the whole human being, with all its complications. One only gets to know human nature when one learns to recognise it in this complication. And you see, that which in abnormal personalities assumes an abnormal shade towards one side or the other is abolished, united in harmony in every human being. It is a trivial saying, but it is true: just as man is accessible to the Cherubim, so is he accessible to the devil. And also these processes where man is accessible to the devil - we will study them yet. But all this also exists in the ordinary human being, only that the opposite activities cancel each other out, because they develop equally strongly in the most different directions. If there is an Angel in everyone, there is also a devil in everyone. But if the Angel and the devil are equally strong for something, then they cancel each other out.

	[[File:GA318 046 en.gif\|center\|300px\|Drawing from GA 318, p. 46 (plate 4)]]		[[File:GA318 046 en.gif\|center\|300px\|Drawing from GA 318, p. 46 (plate 4)]]

Odyssee at 13:38, 27 October 2021

2021-10-27T13:38:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:38, 27 October 2021
Line 221:		Line 221:

	The immortal part of man is his will-feeling being; hence, all non-determined freedom is derived from the Higher I, in so far as it can realise itself through will and feeling in the form of decision and thought.<ref>Cf. [[GA 25]] and [[GA 168]]</ref>		The immortal part of man is his will-feeling being; hence, all non-determined freedom is derived from the Higher I, in so far as it can realise itself through will and feeling in the form of decision and thought.<ref>Cf. [[GA 25]] and [[GA 168]]</ref>

			=== Freedom requires the balance of spirit and nature ===

			Of decisive importance for free will is the right balance between spirit and nature:

			"You know, my dear friends, how sour it becomes a man to grasp an idea which is actually self-evident to the unprejudiced man, and which is denied because the intellect of the philosophers cannot embrace it: the idea of free will. I said about the sensations: the things that are written in the physiologies and psychologies seem childish to those who see through things. But what is said about the idea of free will, even more so. For you must bear in mind that the free decision of will is at every moment an effect of the whole human being; of the whole human being, as it presents itself healthy or ill or half-sick or over-healthy, in the free impulse of will. In the free impulse of will lies the whole human being, but with all that can be seen in the whole human being, with all its complications. One only gets to know human nature when one learns to recognise it in this complication. And you see, that which in abnormal personalities assumes an abnormal shade towards one side or the other is abolished, united in harmony in every human being. It is a trivial saying, but it is true: just as man is accessible to the Cherubim, so is he accessible to the devil. And also these processes where man is accessible to the devil - we will study them yet. But all this also exists in the ordinary human being, only that the opposite activities cancel each other out, because they develop equally strongly in the most different directions. If there is an Angel in everyone, there is also a devil in everyone. But if the Angel and the devil are equally strong for something, then they cancel each other out.

			[[File:GA318 046 en.gif\|center\|300px\|Drawing from GA 318, p. 46 (plate 4)]]

			Now look at this scale (see drawing). There is one point, it is this one. You can put weights here; it can all start moving. This always remains at rest, the hypomochlion, it is not touched by what you put on the left, by what you put on the right. But the arrangement must be made that it need not be touched. A similar spiritual hypomochlion is brought about in man by the opposite forces. You can therefore study the nature of man. Nowhere will you have cause to cite man as a free being, for in man's nature everything is causally conditioned. Study the nature of man with a materialistic mind: you will not arrive at the idea of freedom; you will arrive at the causal condition. But you can also study man spiritually. You come to the determination of will by the Deity or the spiritual entities, but you do not come to freedom of the will. You can be a crude materialist and deny freedom and study the natural causality of the will, you can be a sensitive mind like Leibniz and look at the spiritual: You come to determinism. Of course, as long as you study the scale with the balance beam here, you only come to movement; as long as you study the scale with the balance beam here, you also only come to movement. That is how it is when you study man according to nature, that is how it is when you study man according to the spirit. You do not come to freedom. It lies in the centre of the point of equilibrium between the two.

			That is the theory. But in practice it such that you must decide whether you can hold a person responsible for his deed when he stands before you in a difficult situation in life. This is where the question becomes practical, whether he can wield his free will or not. How can you determine that? By being able to judge whether his mental and physical constitution are in balance. The doctor as well as the priest can come into both cases. Therefore, the training of the doctor as well as of the priest must include an understanding of that state in which man is either in balance between spirit and nature, or in which this balance is askew.

			The sense of responsibility of a human personality can never be decided other than according to a profound knowledge of the human being. The question of freedom in connection with the question of responsibility is precisely one of the deepest imaginable.\|318\|45ff}}

	== Literature ==		== Literature ==

Odyssee at 13:14, 27 October 2021

2021-10-27T13:14:28Z

@@ Line 156: / Line 156: @@
 {{GZ|If the God who is called by the name of Father-God had once not allowed the Luciferic influences to approach man, man would not have developed the free I-disposition. Through the Luciferic influence the disposition to the free I was established. This had to be permitted by the Father-God. But after the I -- for the sake of freedom -- had to be entangled in matter, the complete love of the Son had to lead to the deed of Golgotha in order to be free the I again from this entanglement in matter. This alone made human freedom and complete human dignity possible. That we can be free beings, we owe to a divine deed of love. Thus, as human beings, we may feel as free beings, but we must never forget that we owe this freedom to God's deed of love. If we think in this way, the thought will move to the centre of our feelings: You can attain human dignity; but this you must not forget, that what you are you owe to the One who restored you to your original human form through redemption on Golgotha! - The idea of freedom should
-[[File:GA131 229 en.gif|center|400px|Drawing from GA 131, p. 229]]
+[[File:GA131 229 en.gif|center|500px|Drawing from GA 131, p. 229]]
 not be able to be grasped without the redemptive thought of Christ. Only then is the thought of freedom a justified one. If we want to be free, we must make the sacrifice of owing our freedom to Christ! Only then can we really perceive it.|131|228f}}
@@ Line 179: / Line 179: @@
 Thus freedom is connected with the development of human thought. Freedom is basically always freedom of thought ...|333|107ff}}
 == Literature ==
@@ Line 213: / Line 255: @@
 {{GA}}
 [[Category:Ethics]]
 [[Category:Freedom]]

Odyssee at 13:02, 27 October 2021

2021-10-27T13:02:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:02, 27 October 2021
Line 145:		Line 145:

	And now we come to two categories of entities: First, those Angels who threw themselves into what the Dynameis wreaked during the fight in the heavens. These were such entities that, because of their further deeds, we call the Luciferic entities. These entities then approached the human astral body during the evolution of the earth and gave man the possibility of evil, but with it also the possibility of developing himself out of his own free strength. So that within the entire sequence of the hierarchies we have the possibility of freedom only in a part of the Angels and in man. The possibility of freedom begins, so to speak, in the middle of the progression of Angels; but only in man is it developed in the right way. When man entered upon earth, however, he had to succumb to the great force of the Luciferic spirits. They penetrated the astral body of man with their forces, and the I was thereby included in these forces; so that during the Lemurian and Atlantean periods, and even afterwards, we have the I as in a cloud, as wrapped in a cloud, which was brought about by the influences of Lucifer. Man has only been saved from being overpowered by the forces pulling him down by the fact that earlier beings have overshadowed him, that the Angels who remained above, and the Archangels above, have embodied themselves in special individuals and guided him. And this had been taking place up to that point in time when something very exceptional occurred, when a Being, who until then had only been connected with the existence of the sun, had come so far that it could now not only, like earlier Beings of the higher worlds, enter into the physical body, etheric body and astral body of man, but that it could penetrate man into the I.\|110\|166f}}		And now we come to two categories of entities: First, those Angels who threw themselves into what the Dynameis wreaked during the fight in the heavens. These were such entities that, because of their further deeds, we call the Luciferic entities. These entities then approached the human astral body during the evolution of the earth and gave man the possibility of evil, but with it also the possibility of developing himself out of his own free strength. So that within the entire sequence of the hierarchies we have the possibility of freedom only in a part of the Angels and in man. The possibility of freedom begins, so to speak, in the middle of the progression of Angels; but only in man is it developed in the right way. When man entered upon earth, however, he had to succumb to the great force of the Luciferic spirits. They penetrated the astral body of man with their forces, and the I was thereby included in these forces; so that during the Lemurian and Atlantean periods, and even afterwards, we have the I as in a cloud, as wrapped in a cloud, which was brought about by the influences of Lucifer. Man has only been saved from being overpowered by the forces pulling him down by the fact that earlier beings have overshadowed him, that the Angels who remained above, and the Archangels above, have embodied themselves in special individuals and guided him. And this had been taking place up to that point in time when something very exceptional occurred, when a Being, who until then had only been connected with the existence of the sun, had come so far that it could now not only, like earlier Beings of the higher worlds, enter into the physical body, etheric body and astral body of man, but that it could penetrate man into the I.\|110\|166f}}

			=== Christ and the Mystery of Golgotha ===

			The [[Lucifer]]ic spirits made it possible for man to attain freedom during the evolution of the earth, namely, the freedom to free himself from the will of the Deity. But this is only one, the negative side of freedom. Man would have fallen prey to the Luciferic powers that worked in his astral body. This could only be prevented by the [[Christ]] incarnating himself on [[earth]]. The Christ works directly through the I of the human being, but in doing so he divests himself of any claim to power and thereby makes it possible for the human being to rise to the spiritual by free choice. Only in this way is full freedom realised.

			{{GZ\|... this deed is such that it has no other effect on any human being than that he himself chooses to let an effect have on him, that is, when it is compatible with the absolutely free character of his individual I. For it is not enough for the Christ to become present in the human astral body, the Christ must, if he is to be really understood, become present in the human I. And the I must freely decide to receive the Christ. That is what matters. But it is precisely through this that this human I, when it unites with the Christ, takes into itself a reality, a divine power, not merely a doctrine. Therefore it can be proved a hundred times over that all the teachings of Christianity are already to be found here or there; but that is not what matters, but rather, that which is essential in Christianity is the deed, which can only become one's own possession through a voluntary elevation into the higher worlds. Thus man receives the Christ-power in that he receives it voluntarily, and no one can receive it who does not receive it voluntarily. But this has only become possible for man because the Christ became man on earth, for he was called upon to become man on earth.\|110\|170}}

			{{GZ\|This is the great difference between Christianity as compared with the old doctrines of the gods. If man wants to find the Christ, he must find him in freedom. He must freely acknowledge the Mystery of Golgotha. The content of the cosmogonies forced itself upon man. The Mystery of Golgotha does not force itself upon man. He must approach the Mystery of Golgotha in a certain resurrection of his being in freedom.\|207\|180}}

			{{GZ\|If the God who is called by the name of Father-God had once not allowed the Luciferic influences to approach man, man would not have developed the free I-disposition. Through the Luciferic influence the disposition to the free I was established. This had to be permitted by the Father-God. But after the I -- for the sake of freedom -- had to be entangled in matter, the complete love of the Son had to lead to the deed of Golgotha in order to be free the I again from this entanglement in matter. This alone made human freedom and complete human dignity possible. That we can be free beings, we owe to a divine deed of love. Thus, as human beings, we may feel as free beings, but we must never forget that we owe this freedom to God's deed of love. If we think in this way, the thought will move to the centre of our feelings: You can attain human dignity; but this you must not forget, that what you are you owe to the One who restored you to your original human form through redemption on Golgotha! - The idea of freedom should

			[[File:GA131 229 en.gif\|center\|400px\|Drawing from GA 131, p. 229]]

			not be able to be grasped without the redemptive thought of Christ. Only then is the thought of freedom a justified one. If we want to be free, we must make the sacrifice of owing our freedom to Christ! Only then can we really perceive it.\|131\|228f}}

			{{GZ\|Twice in the evolution of mankind the same word has been used: Once in the Paradise Temptation, when Lucifer said to man, ‘You will be like the gods, your eyes will be opened.’ This is the figurative expression for the Luciferic impulse. Lucifer thus poured spirituality into the lower nature of man and through this gave man the opportunity to come to inner freedom through moral motives. And a second time was now said by the Christ: Are you not gods? (John 10:34 LUT) - The same word! From this we see that it is not only the content of a word that is important, but also the essence which the word speaks, the manner in which a word is spoken. There we see the necessary connection between the deed of Lucifer and the deed of Christ also expressed in a figurative way, as religious documents are wont to do.

			Lucifer is the bringer of the personal freedom of the individual human being, Christ is the bearer of the freedom of the whole human race, of the whole human race on earth. This is the significance of Anthroposophy, that it teaches us that the recognition of the Christ-being will take place in such a way that man is free to recognise the Christ or not, just as man is free not to be moral.

			A free truth shall be the Christ for the human soul.\|150\|99}}

			{{GZ\|And since this heavenly, the intellectuality and freedom have thus entered into earthly life, a different looking up to divinity has become necessary for humanity than was formerly the case. And this different way of looking up to divinity has become possible for humanity through the Mystery of Golgotha. By entering into earthly life, the Christ can sanctify that which has entered from the supersensible worlds and which would otherwise seduce man to pride and all manner of things. We live in a time when we must comprehend: That which is most sacred to us in this age must be permeated by the Christ-impulse: the ability to grasp pure concepts, and the ability of freedom.\|257\|45}}

			== Development towards freedom ==

			Freedom is not given to man from the beginning, but rather, he must develop it on his own by rising to pure sensory-free thinking and, through this, experience moral intuition.

			{{GZ\|One asks: is man free or is he not free? Is man a free being who can make decisions out of his soul with real responsibility, or is he harnessed to a natural or spiritual necessity like a natural being? This question has been asked, I would like to say, for thousands of years, and this question is still being asked. This very question is the great error.

			One cannot ask in this way, but the question of freedom is a question of human development, such a human development that in the course of his youthful life, or perhaps of his later life, man develops forces within himself which he does not simply have from nature. One cannot even ask: Is man free? He is not free by nature, but he can make himself more and more free by awakening forces that lie dormant in him and that nature does not awaken. Man can become freer and freer. One cannot ask: Is man free or unfree, but only: Is there a way for man to attain freedom? And this path does exist. As I said, thirty years ago I tried to show: When man advances to develop an inner life within himself, so that he grasps the moral impulses for his actions in pure thought, he can really base his actions on thought impulses, not merely on instinctive emotions, - thoughts which submerge themselves in outer reality as the lover does in the beloved being. Then man approaches his freedom. Freedom is just as much a child of thought grasped in spiritual clairvoyance - not under an external compulsion - as it is a child of true devoted love, the love for the object of his action. What German spiritual life was striving for in Schiller, when he confronted Kant and suspected something of such a concept of freedom, behoves us to develop it further in the present. But then it became clear to me that one can only speak of that which underlies moral actions - even if it remains unconscious in human beings, it is nevertheless present - and that one must call this intuition. Therefore, in my ‘Philosophy of Freedom’ I spoke of a moral intuition.

			But this was also the starting point for everything I later tried to achieve in the field of spiritual science. Do not believe that I think about these things today in an immodest way. I know very well that this ‘Philosophy of Freedom’, which I conceived more than thirty years ago as a young man, has, as it were, all the teething troubles of that life of thought which emerged in the course of the 19th century. But I also know that out of this cerebral life has sprouted that which has lifted the life of thought into the truly spiritual. So that I can say to myself: When man rises to the moral impulses in moral intuition and represents a truly free being, then he is already, if I may use the frowned-upon word, ‘clairvoyant’ with reference to his moral intuitions. In that which lies beyond all that is sensory lie the incentives of all that is moral. Basically, the truly moral precepts are results of human clairvoyance. Therefore, there was a straight path from that ‘Philosophy of Freedom’ to what I mean today as spiritual science. Freedom germinates in man only when man develops himself. But he can develop further, so that which already underlies freedom also drives him to become independent of all sensuality and to rise freely into the realms of the spirit.

			Thus freedom is connected with the development of human thought. Freedom is basically always freedom of thought ...\|333\|107ff}}

	== Literature ==		== Literature ==

Odyssee at 12:31, 27 October 2021

2021-10-27T12:31:34Z

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 In order to make it clear that human [[thinking]] is an outright pole of freedom, which Steiner already wrote in the “Philosophy of Freedom”, [[Joseph Beuys]] once put forward the following formula: Thinking = Knowledge = Freedom
 === Freedom and intellectualism ===
@@ Line 125: / Line 124: @@
 {{BZ|In every experience of freedom three things are interwoven. They appear as a unity at the moment when the experience takes place, but the subsequent course of life makes one conscious of them separately. One experiences what one has to do as an inner image that rises before one in free moral imaginative activity. What one has decided to do appears as a true imagination for one must find it worth loving. The second element contained in the unified experience is the impulse that one is admonished by higher powers to follow what is germinating within. <Do it> say the inner voices, and the awareness of them is a true inspiration. But also a third element is interwoven into the unified experience. Through the deed, one places oneself in an external environment of destiny into which one would never have entered without the freedom experience. One now encounters different people, is led to different places, by the fact that the inner intuitively grasped now becomes the fateful environment approaching from the outside. The situation of a true intuition arises." "You see," Rudolf Steiner continued, "these three interwoven experiences have subsequently separated, --have become conscious in isolation, so that imagination and inspiration and intuition have become conscious acts of cognition.|49|30}}
 == Literature ==