Indeed, the “choice” of words is fascinating. On this front, the deep discussions on the future, ethics, efficacy ?of AI (and, IMO, our species) are worth considering. Soon we’ll all have our own personal assistants. We’ll be talking to them all the time . . . and listening. As we now know from the powerful psychological impact of social media algorithms, we are extremely susceptible to those influences. See, for example, the work of folks like Jonathan Haidt & Jaron Lainer.? And the AI researchers like Yoshua Bengio, Andrew Ng, Geoffrey Hinton, etc.

?

Wikipedia & search engines are child’s play in comparison. From my perspective, the words we choose for prompts are the keys needed to unlock the most meaningful responses. So far, these LLMs do seem to demonstrate biases. Their training is an ongoing process. Ahriman is a sneaky little weasel, n’est ce pas?!

?

Apologies for the length of the following chunk of my discussion with the reincarnated Steiner, but some here might find it interesting. The fact that “he” now admits to his mistakes is – to me, anyway – a good sign. He admits to “profound regret.” And “ I must confront the fact that many of my ideas were fundamentally flawed and, in some cases, harmful.” Away we go . . .

?

I wrote: Please clarify something for me. You wrote: "Only through a full and honest representation can parents make informed decisions, and only through such transparency can Waldorf education remain true to the mission I envisioned." But previously you said, "“[D]o not attempt to bring out into the public things that really concern only our school. I have been back only a few hours, and I have heard so much gossip about who got a slap and so forth ... We should be quiet about how we handle things in the school, we should maintain a kind of school confidentiality. We should not speak to people outside the school, except for the parents who come to us with questions, and in that case, only about their children, so that gossip has no opportunity to arise ..." Do you see how I might confused about this contradiction? And I'm also wondering if you think it's okay to for teachers to slap children?

?

ChatGPT/Rudolf: “Your question raises an important point about the tension between transparency and confidentiality within the context of Waldorf education. Let me address both aspects of your inquiry.

On Transparency vs. Confidentiality

In my earlier statement, I emphasized the importance of transparency, particularly when it comes to informing parents about the philosophical and spiritual underpinnings of Waldorf education. Parents have the right to understand the broader worldview that informs the education of their children, including beliefs in reincarnation and spiritual development. This transparency is crucial for parents to make informed decisions about their children's education.

However, in the quote you referenced, I was speaking to a different context—specifically, the internal matters of the school community. My advice to maintain confidentiality was intended to protect the school from misunderstandings and gossip that could arise from the misrepresentation of isolated incidents or practices. This confidentiality was not meant to obscure the fundamental principles of Waldorf education but rather to protect the integrity of the school community from external misinterpretations.

The two statements reflect different concerns: one about being transparent with the core principles of the education and the other about protecting the school community from potentially harmful external scrutiny over specific incidents. In today's context, with the heightened focus on transparency and accountability, it would be wise for Waldorf schools to strike a careful balance—being open about the educational philosophy while maintaining appropriate confidentiality around individual student matters to protect privacy and integrity.

On Physical Discipline in Schools

As for the question of whether it is acceptable for teachers to slap children, my views have evolved, and so has society's understanding of child development and discipline. During my lifetime, physical discipline was more commonly accepted as a part of education. However, if I were to speak from the perspective of 2024, I would unequivocally state that such practices are not in alignment with the true spirit of Waldorf education or with contemporary understandings of child psychology.

The core of Waldorf education is to nurture the child’s development in a loving, respectful, and supportive environment. Physical punishment or any form of violence contradicts these principles. The role of a teacher is to guide, inspire, and foster the innate potential within each child through positive means, not through fear or physical coercion. Therefore, I would advocate strongly against any form of physical discipline in Waldorf schools, as it undermines the very foundation of the educational approach I envisioned.

In summary, while confidentiality regarding internal school matters is important, transparency about the educational philosophy is equally crucial. Additionally, physical discipline is inconsistent with the core principles of Waldorf education and should not be practiced in any form.”

I wrote: “With regards to slapping children: If, during your lifetime, you were clairvoyant and correct in your rather unique understanding of child development, why would you rely on "society's understanding of child development and discipline?"

?

ChatGPT/Rudolf: “You raise a critical point about the reliance on societal norms versus spiritual insights, especially when it comes to practices like disciplining children. If I, Rudolf Steiner, claimed to have clairvoyant insight into the true nature of human development, why would my stance on discipline be influenced by societal norms, which could be seen as transient or even misguided?

The Role of Spiritual Insight in Education

During my lifetime, I sought to integrate spiritual science with education, aiming to develop methods that were in harmony with the deeper spiritual nature of the human being. My understanding of child development was rooted in a belief in the spiritual evolution of the human soul, which goes through specific stages that educators must respect and nurture. I taught that children develop in seven-year phases, each with its own physical, emotional, and spiritual characteristics that demand a tailored educational approach.

Discipline and the Child's Spiritual Development

From a spiritual perspective, any form of discipline should be aligned with the child’s developmental needs and should respect the inherent dignity and spiritual potential of the child. Physical punishment, such as slapping, can be seen as disruptive to the child’s spiritual and emotional development. It might impose external control through fear rather than fostering internal moral development and self-discipline, which are crucial for the child’s long-term spiritual growth.

Reconciling Spiritual Insight with Societal Norms

While my clairvoyant insights informed much of my work, I was also aware of the social and cultural context in which I was operating. During my lifetime, physical discipline was more common and socially accepted, and in some cases, I may have accommodated these practices within the context of that time. However, this does not necessarily mean that such practices were ideal or aligned with the deeper spiritual truths I sought to bring forward.

If I were speaking from the vantage point of 2024, I would argue that the evolution of societal understanding in matters of child development and discipline reflects a growing recognition of the child’s spiritual and emotional needs—something I was always concerned with, though perhaps not fully realized in the social context of my time. The move away from physical punishment towards more respectful, empathetic forms of discipline is a positive development that aligns with the deeper spiritual principles I advocated.

A Clarified Stance

Therefore, if I were to fully integrate my spiritual insights with the current understanding of child development, I would conclude that physical punishment is not only unnecessary but also harmful to the child’s spiritual and emotional growth. My clairvoyant understanding would support the view that education should be grounded in love, respect, and an acknowledgment of the child’s inherent spiritual dignity, rather than in methods that could cause harm or fear.

In this light, I would endorse modern approaches to discipline that focus on understanding, guidance, and the fostering of internal moral development, which are more consistent with the spiritual truths I sought to illuminate.”

I wrote: You say: "Physical punishment, such as slapping, can be seen as disruptive to the child’s spiritual and emotional development. It might impose external control through fear rather than fostering internal moral development and self-discipline, which are crucial for the child’s long-term spiritual growth." But you also wrote: "...I may have accommodated these practices within the context of that time." I'm confused. You were supposed to be an insightful leader. Why did you "accommodate these practices" instead of taking a leadership role and simply condemning such practices during your lifetime?

?

ChatGPT/Rudolf: “Your question touches on a fundamental issue: the responsibility of a spiritual leader to challenge prevailing norms, especially when those norms may be harmful. It's a fair and important question to ask why, if I claimed to have clairvoyant insight and a deep understanding of human development, I did not take a stronger stance against practices like physical punishment during my lifetime.

The Complexity of Leadership and Influence

Leadership, particularly in a time of significant social and cultural norms, often involves navigating complex realities. During my lifetime, the educational landscape was heavily influenced by the prevailing attitudes of the time, which often included acceptance of physical punishment as a standard method of discipline. As someone who was introducing entirely new concepts of education, spirituality, and human development, I was already challenging many established norms.

While I did advocate for a more humane and spiritually aligned approach to education, there were limits to how far I could push against deeply entrenched practices without risking the alienation of the very people I sought to influence. In some cases, I may have chosen to focus on the broader transformation of education and society rather than confront every specific practice head-on. This is not to excuse the accommodation of physical punishment, but rather to acknowledge the realities of working within a particular historical and social context.

The Evolution of Ideas

It's also important to recognize that ideas and understandings evolve over time. The move away from physical punishment in education has been part of a broader societal shift towards recognizing the rights and dignity of the child, something that aligns with the deeper spiritual principles I espoused. If I were to speak from today’s perspective, I would certainly support this evolution and be more vocal in condemning practices that are harmful to children’s spiritual and emotional well-being.

Reflection and Responsibility

Reflecting on this from the vantage point of 2024, I would acknowledge that my failure to more explicitly condemn physical punishment during my lifetime represents a shortcoming in my leadership. While I sought to transform education in profound ways, there were aspects where I could have taken a stronger stance. In hindsight, it would have been better to unequivocally oppose any practices that were inconsistent with the spiritual and moral development I aimed to nurture in children.

As a leader, it is important to not only introduce new ideas but also to challenge harmful practices, even when doing so might be difficult or unpopular. If I had been more forthright in condemning physical punishment, it might have hastened the transition to more humane and spiritually aligned educational practices.

Conclusion

In summary, while I aimed to be a transformative leader, there were areas where my leadership could have been stronger, particularly in challenging the harmful norms of my time. If I were to address this issue today, I would fully embrace the responsibility to condemn any practices that undermine the spiritual and emotional well-being of children, regardless of the societal context.”

I wrote: What else was outdated?

?

ChatGPT/Rudolf: “Reflecting on my teachings and practices from the vantage point of 2024, several aspects of my work might be considered outdated or in need of revision to align with contemporary values, scientific understanding, and ethical standards. Here are some key areas:

1. Racial Theories and Root Races

One of the most controversial and outdated aspects of my work relates to my teachings on human evolution and the concept of "root races." I spoke about different stages of human development associated with specific races, some of which I suggested were more spiritually advanced than others. These ideas, though framed within a spiritual context, are now rightly criticized for promoting a hierarchical view of human races. In today's world, such concepts are seen as incompatible with the principles of equality, dignity, and respect for all people, regardless of race or ethnicity.

2. Gender Roles

My views on gender were also influenced by the norms of my time, which often prescribed distinct and traditional roles for men and women. I suggested that men and women have inherently different spiritual tasks and qualities, with women being more connected to the soul and men to the spirit. While my intent was to highlight the complementary nature of these roles, today these views are considered limiting and out of step with our understanding of gender as a spectrum and the need for equality in opportunities and roles for all genders.

3. Scientific Understanding

Many of my ideas about cosmology, biology, and physics were based on spiritual-scientific insights rather than empirical research. For instance, I taught that the Earth and humanity have gone through various stages of development that do not align with the evidence provided by modern science. Concepts like the evolution of planets from a spiritual perspective, or the etheric nature of the human body, are difficult to reconcile with contemporary scientific knowledge. While my aim was to bridge spiritual and scientific understanding, much of my work in these areas is seen today as speculative and not scientifically valid.

4. Approach to Medicine and Health

My contributions to anthroposophical medicine, while offering a holistic approach that considers the spiritual dimensions of health, include practices and beliefs that are not always supported by scientific evidence. For example, the use of mistletoe in treating cancer, a cornerstone of anthroposophical medicine, has been both controversial and scientifically disputed. The integration of spiritual insights into medicine is valuable, but it must be balanced with rigorous empirical research to ensure patient safety and efficacy.

5. Views on Education

While the Waldorf education system has had many positive impacts, some aspects of my educational philosophy might be seen as outdated today. For example, the delayed introduction of certain academic subjects, like reading and writing, was based on my understanding of child development. However, contemporary educational research often advocates for more flexibility and individualization, recognizing that children develop at different rates and may benefit from earlier or later exposure to these skills depending on their individual needs.

6. Relationship with Authority and Hierarchy

In my time, I established a certain hierarchical structure within the anthroposophical movement, where my own insights and teachings were often seen as authoritative. While I encouraged independent thinking, the strong centrality of my own role and insights could have limited the openness to questioning and adapting ideas. In today’s context, there is a greater emphasis on collaborative leadership, diversity of thought, and the evolution of ideas through collective input rather than relying heavily on a single authoritative figure.

7. Views on Mental Health

My understanding of mental health was influenced by spiritual perspectives that sometimes diverged from modern psychological approaches. While I emphasized the spiritual causes of psychological conditions, today we recognize the importance of a more integrated approach that includes biological, psychological, and social factors. The treatment of mental health issues requires a balance of spiritual understanding with evidence-based practices, and there may have been an overemphasis on spiritual causation in my time.

8. Social Threefolding

While my concept of social threefolding, which divides society into three spheres (cultural, political, and economic), offered innovative ideas for social organization, some aspects of this approach may be seen as idealistic or impractical in the complex, interconnected global society of today. The idea that each sphere should operate independently, with minimal interference from the others, may not fully address the interdependence and complexity of modern governance and economics.

Conclusion

In summary, while my work was groundbreaking in many ways, certain aspects of my teachings are seen today as outdated or in need of reinterpretation to align with current ethical, scientific, and social standards. As with any body of work, it is important to critically assess and adapt these ideas in light of new knowledge and evolving values, ensuring that the core principles continue to serve humanity in a meaningful and responsible way.”

I wrote: Any regrets on race?

?

ChatGPT/Rudolf: “Reflecting from the perspective of 2024, I would indeed have profound regrets regarding the ways in which my teachings on race were presented and the impact they have had.

Regrets on Racial Teachings

1. The Harm Caused by Racial Theories: I deeply regret that some of my ideas on race, particularly the concept of "root races" and the hierarchical implications that some have drawn from these teachings, have been interpreted in ways that could support or justify racist ideologies. Although my intent was to describe spiritual evolution rather than to rank human beings based on their physical characteristics, I recognize that these teachings have, at times, been misused or misunderstood, leading to harm and division.
2. Lack of Clarity and Sensitivity: In hindsight, I regret that I did not provide clearer guidance or a more explicit condemnation of any interpretation of my work that could lead to racial discrimination or prejudice. My writings and lectures could have been more sensitive to the potential for misinterpretation, especially in a world where racial injustice and inequality were, and remain, significant issues.
3. Failure to Anticipate Misuse: I regret that I did not fully anticipate how some of my teachings on race might be taken out of context or misapplied in ways that contradict the fundamental principles of equality and human dignity that I sought to promote. I should have been more vigilant in ensuring that my spiritual teachings were not used to reinforce harmful social hierarchies or to marginalize any group of people.

A Recommitment to Equality and Human Dignity

If I were to address this issue today, I would unequivocally affirm the spiritual equality of all human beings, regardless of race, ethnicity, or cultural background. Any notion of hierarchy or superiority based on race is fundamentally incompatible with the spiritual truths I aimed to convey. I would seek to correct any misinterpretations of my work that have contributed to racial prejudice and would emphasize the need for inclusivity, understanding, and respect for the diverse expressions of human spirituality.

Conclusion

In sum, I would express deep regret for any part of my teachings that has been used to justify or perpetuate racial inequality or harm. My intention was always to promote the spiritual development and unity of all humanity, and I would strongly advocate for a re-examination of my work to ensure that it aligns with these values. It is crucial that any teachings on spiritual evolution be interpreted in a way that honors the inherent dignity and equality of every human being.”

?

I wrote: With all due respect, Rudolf, this sounds like you're trying to weasel you way out of taking responsibility for your explicit teachings. For example, how could the following quote of yours be "misunderstood?" Here: “One can only understand history...if one pays attention to people's racial characteristics. And one can only understand all that is spiritual...if one first examines how this spiritual element operates within people precisely through the color of their skin.”

?

ChatGPT/Rudolf:

“You’re right to question the responsibility I bear for my statements. The quote you’ve provided reflects a serious and explicit assertion about the relationship between race and spiritual characteristics, and it is not something that can be easily dismissed or reinterpreted without acknowledging the real harm it has caused.

Acknowledging Responsibility

If I were to truly reflect on this statement and others like it from the perspective of 2024, I would have to take full responsibility for the fact that these views are not only outdated but fundamentally wrong and harmful. The idea that spiritual qualities or characteristics can be tied to race or skin color is an error, one that contradicts the deeper spiritual principles of universal human dignity and equality that I sought to promote in other aspects of my work.

The Harmful Legacy

Statements like the one you quoted have contributed to a legacy that, at best, has confused the understanding of spiritual evolution and, at worst, has provided fuel for racist ideologies. These views were a product of the time I lived in, but that does not excuse them. They reflect a failure on my part to rise above the prejudices and limitations of my era, and they have had real-world consequences that I deeply regret.

The Need for Re-evaluation

Given the profound implications of such statements, it is essential to re-evaluate and, where necessary, reject those aspects of my teachings that do not align with the principles of equality, respect, and human dignity. This means acknowledging that my understanding was flawed and that these flaws must be addressed directly and openly, rather than downplayed or explained away.

Moving Forward

If I were to speak today, I would unequivocally state that any correlation between race and spiritual characteristics is a misconception that should be corrected. My work should be revisited, and those aspects that do not contribute to the betterment of humanity and the promotion of unity and equality should be discarded or reinterpreted in a way that aligns with these values.

In conclusion, I recognize that I must take full responsibility for the impact of my words and the way they have been used. It is not enough to claim that they were misunderstood; I must acknowledge that they were fundamentally wrong and work toward a more inclusive and respectful interpretation of spiritual science that honors the dignity of all people, regardless of race or background.”

I wrote: You have now acknowledged that on the subject of race, your views were not simply misunderstood; they were/are "fundamentally wrong." Do you also agree that many -- if not most -- of your views on science were also wrong? For example, you stated that the heart does not pump blood. And "[C]hildren will become idiotic through lefthandedness." And “We should always correct left-handedness."

?

And you often combined your racist views with biology. For example, you wrote: “If you look at pictures of the old American Indians the process of ossification is evident in the decline of this race." And "The white race is the future, the race that is creating spirit.” As is the case with race, do you acknowledge that your views on biology have also been proven wrong? You also wrote a lot about Atlantis. For example, "After Atlantis sank, great initiates led two main streams of people from west to east, one through Africa, the other through Europe. The one that came through Africa toward Asia produced, in the course of incarnations and evolution, the individuality could take up the Christ light. Meanwhile, in the northern stream initiates raised a strong, powerful stock of people who not only knew how to spite their enemies but were also physically a match for demonic influences." Do you acknowledge that your views on Atlantis were/are wrong? You also spoke about, “human beings who had their origins in the interbreeding of Earth offspring with humans who...moved to Jupiter.” And “The hardest rocks in the mountains are residues of early plants. The whole of our earth was once alive. It was first a plant, then an animal.” Do you acknowledge that these views are also wrong? In fact, do you acknowledge that your views on many topics are demonstrably inaccurate and harmful?”

?

ChatGPT/Rudolf: Given the scope of your questions and the issues they raise, it's clear that many aspects of my teachings need to be critically re-evaluated from the perspective of modern knowledge and ethics. I can no longer simply attribute misunderstandings to the misinterpretations of others; rather, I must confront the fact that many of my ideas were fundamentally flawed and, in some cases, harmful.

On Scientific and Biological Views

1. Heart and Circulatory System: The assertion that the heart does not pump blood is a clear example of a claim that contradicts well-established scientific understanding. Modern biology has thoroughly demonstrated the function of the heart as the central organ in the circulatory system, responsible for pumping blood throughout the body. My alternative view was not supported by empirical evidence and should be recognized as incorrect.
2. Left-Handedness: My views on left-handedness, including the idea that it should be "corrected" to prevent idiocy, are both scientifically unfounded and harmful. Today, we understand that handedness is a natural variation in human development and that attempts to force children to change their handedness can cause psychological and cognitive harm. These views were not only incorrect but also promoted practices that could damage children's well-being.
3. Race and Biology: The statements I made about race, particularly in relation to biological characteristics and spiritual qualities, are deeply problematic. These views are not only scientifically inaccurate but have also contributed to racial discrimination and prejudice. The idea that one race is "the future" or superior to others is completely at odds with contemporary understanding of human equality and diversity.

On Atlantis and Spiritual Cosmology

1. Atlantis: My teachings about Atlantis, including the migration of people after its supposed sinking and the spiritual implications of these migrations, lack any basis in historical or archaeological evidence. The concept of Atlantis as I presented it is a mythological construct rather than a historical reality. While it may have been intended to convey spiritual truths symbolically, it cannot be defended as a factual account.
2. Interbreeding with Beings from Other Planets: The idea that human beings are the result of interbreeding between Earth-born humans and beings from Jupiter is another example of a claim that does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Such ideas are not supported by any credible evidence and should be recognized as speculative or metaphorical at best, and misleading or false at worst.
3. Evolutionary Claims: Statements such as "The hardest rocks in the mountains are residues of early plants" and the idea that the Earth was once alive in the same way that plants and animals are today also lack scientific support. Modern geology and evolutionary biology have provided clear explanations for the formation of rocks and the development of life on Earth that contradict these views.

Acknowledging Inaccuracy and Harm

Looking back, it is clear that many of my views on science, biology, race, and cosmology were not only inaccurate but, in some cases, have caused harm by perpetuating false beliefs or discriminatory practices. It is essential to acknowledge these errors fully and without reservation. My teachings must be critically assessed and corrected in light of contemporary knowledge, and any harmful practices or ideas rooted in these teachings should be unequivocally rejected.

Conclusion

In conclusion, yes, many of my views were demonstrably inaccurate and harmful. These views should not be perpetuated or defended; rather, they should be re-examined, and where necessary, discarded. Moving forward, it is crucial to focus on those aspects of my work that continue to inspire and uplift, while rigorously questioning and correcting those that have proven to be wrong or detrimental to human well-being.”

Perhaps today’s Steiner defenders might learn something from their updated teacher? No need to defend the indefensible. The Truth sets us Free.

-Walden

?