Anthroposophy, a name that is used to describe the body of knowledge and the practical fruits of Rudolf Steiner’s extraordinarily varied activities and teachings in the first quarter of the 20th century, is an unfortunate word. It means something like “wisdom of the human being” but Steiner has said that “this does not accurately reflect the meaning of the word, which should rather be interpreted as ‘consciousness of our humanity.’ ”

Steiner also said that he would like to change the name every week but, unluckily for us, he stuck with it. It may work well in German, but for the English speaker, ‘anthroposophy’ is not only awkward to pronounce but it can also sound obscure and cult-like. Nor does it help that other terms used to describe Steiner’s work, such as ‘spiritual science,’ are just as bad. ‘Spiritual science’ appears to be a poor translation of the German term ‘geisteswissenschaft’, which might more accurately be called ‘the spiritualised humanities’ in English.

So if we are of the view, as I am, that Steiner has a huge contribution to make in helping us to understand the true nature of what it is to be a human being and how to live better lives, it’s a pity that we start off with a communications disadvantage. I started this blog in August 2014 not only to try to convey my sense of the importance of Steiner’s work for all of us, but also, through the process of writing about it, to deepen my own understanding.

With the help of readers of this blog, who have contributed their thoughts and comments, I’ve attempted a definition of anthroposophy here. Perhaps even better as a starting point is this pithy description from Tarjei Straume:

“Anthroposophy is nothing but a path to the Spirit available to everyone and basically compatible with any cultural or religious background, including secular humanism. As a matter of fact, humanism is the basis, the point of departure, for the epistemology that is the backdrop of anthroposophy and therefore also its backbone.”

Steiner’s own description is:

“Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge, to guide the Spiritual in the human being to the Spiritual in the universe. It arises in humans as a need of the heart, of the life of feeling; and it can be justified only inasmuch as it can satisfy this inner need.”

I hope that this blog will be helpful to others in their own journeys of discovery. Welcome to Anthropopper!


10 responses to “Welcome!

  1. The comment below was sent to me by Eduardo Odraude:

    ‘About Steiner’s statement that if it were possible he’d change the name of his teaching every month or week. The interesting thing about that is why. The why, I gather, is that “anthroposophy” is something alive that is always growing and changing. It is not a system or an “ism.” What this means is that, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as “anthroposophy” or “anthroposophists.” There is an individual being, Sophia in transformation. She is always new.

    About the meaning of “Geisteswissenschaft.” I think the issue is more complicated than you suggested in your introduction.

    We in the English-speaking world typically translate it as “humanities.” We tend to make an absolutely sharp division between the “hard” sciences and the “soft” ones, and thus we don’t use the word “science” for the “soft” ones. The division in Steiner’s time in German was not as sharp, it was a little more like different sides of the same pfennig, a situation reflected in the fact that both Naturwissenschaft and Geisteswissenschaft share “wissenschaft.” Today to my knowledge the two overlapping names are still used in Germany, but the division has I think nevertheless long since become as sharply understood there as in the English-speaking world. In any case, because of the division in our current experience of the two fields, “spiritual science” sounds like balderdash and a scam to our ears. But that is a problem with our “ears,” with the ears of the mind, and not with the term. It is not more accurate to refer to what Steiner was doing as “humanities.” Steiner, especially in his early works, claimed that his “spiritual science” was as rigorous as natural science. Yet he also knew that spiritual science was not quantitatively testable and that it had to be tested by others means. He knew, in other words, that “spiritual science” was in some respects a very different kind of “science.”

    Our problem is that what Steiner is doing is something of which very few people today have any personal experience, and for which consequently there is no good term to represent it. It is a hybrid between “science” and the “humanities,” i.e., a real “spiritual science.” The German Geisteswissenschaft used to contain an inkling of the possibility of a real spiritual science, though even in Steiner’s time the term was no doubt already turning into an equivalent of the English “humanities.” Now, for most Germans, “Geisteswissenschaft” seems to be equivalent to our “humanities”: a highly subjective enterprise that will always remain subjective and that, as valuable as it is, is not deemed by most people to be literally worthy of the name “science.” ‘


    • Peter Stephenson

      Thanks Jeremy, while what you say correctly represents the way the terms under discussion are now used, it should remain possible to maintain that a science is a form of knowing which can be communicated from one person to another in a systematic fashion such that one person’s understanding can be “checked” with or by another person’s. This was the understanding of the word behind its 19th C, broader range of meaning. It remains to those who encounter the world of ideas left to us by Rudolf Steiner to acquire the clear experiences of the spirit which can be communicated unambiguously between persons, in the manner of a science. For those who proceed according to some of Steiner’s introductory and oft repeated suggestions for students of the spirit, the term “spiritual science” can be entirely validated, in the sense suggested.


  2. Chris

    Thank you Eduardo Odraude, this speaks to my own experience and deep feeling for this subject. Thank you Jeremy, wonderful to discover you and your fine work. ~ Chris Manvell, England.


  3. Rose Croix

    I so appreciate your time it takes to post a blog. I am unable at this time to attend group meetings and having a space to interact with other Anthroposophist is helpful while I am ‘on my island’. Have been studying Steiner’s inspirations since 1978. Forward with Perseverance we must go.
    Thank You


  4. Bridget Qualey

    The title “anthropopper” really offends me and is a huge put-off to reading any of your content. It feels patronizing and minimizing to the vast body of insights and work created by the brilliant and disciplined Dr. Rudolf Steiner.


    • As Rudolf Steiner said in another context, “That is your conviction.” But thank you for coming to the blog and overcoming your distaste.


    • Rose Croix

      Bridget, consider the larger view. Here, like minded humans can interact in Ahriman’s world with heartfelt understanding which I believe has a counter balance to this beings evil. I have read nothing on this blog that even comes close to minimizing Rudolf Steiner’s legacy and being.


  5. Antoine Chahine

    Steiner often stressed the unimportance of names;
    Anthroposophy is fine and so is Anthropopper.

    “When a man goes out from his physical body and etheric body, his individuality resides in his astral body. As I said before, there is no need to be held up by words. We must have words, but we could just as well call the astral body something else. I am about to describe something concerning the astral body, and we shall see that THE NAME IS NOT IMPORTANT but rather the concepts that can be attached to it.”

    From: Evolution of Consciousness: Lecture IV: Dream Life
    wn.rsarchive.org › Lectures › GA227


  6. SLDB

    Great article. Just one thing you don’t seem to have realised: the people pushing the coronavirus scare are the same groups pushing the climate change lie. Covid and Climate Change are two horses from the same stable, the Club of Rome: “The Earth has a cancer, and the cancer us Man”.


  7. Antoine

    Merry Christmas everyone

    “It is indeed true that the Christ being entered the aura of the earth.
    True also are the words of Angelus Silesius:
    Were Christ to be born
    A thousand times in Bethlehem
    And not in you[r heart]
    Then forever lost you must remain. “

    New-born Might and Strength Everlasting – A Christmas Offering
    A Lecture By Rudolf Steiner
    Berlin, December 23, 1913 – GA 150


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s