|
0 members (),
225
guests, and
18
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 |
It has to be noted, though, that the Waldorf view of the individual is very much constrained by the 7 year developmental stages and the combination of the four temperaments "assigned" to the child, and if a. Child has special needs it may be attributed to bad karma...(says the great granddaughter of one of the first Steiner adepts of the era and granddaughter of a girl educated at the very first Waldorf school...I am the first real sceptic of the family!) At some point, if we as a group are honest, we're going to have to use the cult word in describing the underlying beliefs. It's total nonsense, with its central tenets refuted by the smallest scrap of reason. Kudos to you, Tigerle, for being your family's black sheep.
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
As an atheist, I find most religious beliefs pretty odd and nonsensical regardless of tradition. So, the past lives, etc is no weirder to me than various Biblical miracles. However, what is odd to me about Waldorf is that they don't bill themselves as religious school, yet they clearly are deeply influenced by reliious (minority religious) principles. At least my son's Christian preschool was upfront about being Christian!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 |
As an atheist, I find most religious beliefs pretty odd and nonsensical regardless of tradition. So, the past lives, etc is no weirder to me than various Biblical miracles. However, what is odd to me about Waldorf is that they don't bill themselves as religious school, yet they clearly are deeply influenced by reliious (minority religious) principles. At least my son's Christian preschool was upfront about being Christian! There is a difference between beliefs being taught as beliefs for their own sake and beliefs being used as the underpinning for an entire pedagogical method without this motive made explicit. The former is a caveat emptor condition, the latter is unethical.
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
As an atheist, I find most religious beliefs pretty odd and nonsensical regardless of tradition. So, the past lives, etc is no weirder to me than various Biblical miracles. However, what is odd to me about Waldorf is that they don't bill themselves as religious school, yet they clearly are deeply influenced by reliious (minority religious) principles. At least my son's Christian preschool was upfront about being Christian! Agreed. It's such a hodgepodge of beliefs, borrowed heavily from multiple, disparate religious systems, and enhanced with certain human developmental principles that have no prior basis in either religion, philosophy, or psychology (or if so, they're not apparent to me), that Waldorfianism could be considered to be a new religion altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
There is a difference between beliefs being taught as beliefs for their own sake and beliefs being used as the underpinning for an entire pedagogical method without this motive made explicit. The former is a caveat emptor condition, the latter is unethical. In general theory I agree, though it's somewhat unclear to me how this all plays out in practice. I have often wondered why Waldorf does it this way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
As an atheist, I find most religious beliefs pretty odd and nonsensical regardless of tradition. So, the past lives, etc is no weirder to me than various Biblical miracles. However, what is odd to me about Waldorf is that they don't bill themselves as religious school, yet they clearly are deeply influenced by reliious (minority religious) principles. At least my son's Christian preschool was upfront about being Christian! Agreed. It's such a hodgepodge of beliefs, borrowed heavily from multiple, disparate religious systems, and enhanced with certain human developmental principles that have no prior basis in either religion, philosophy, or psychology (or if so, they're not apparent to me), that Waldorfianism could be considered to be a new religion altogether. Exactly so-- Charlotte Mason is the homeschooling variant of a similar set of pedagogical core tenets, but it is overtly Christian (with some Presbyterian-Reform overtones), and it's quite overt about those influences.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 517
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 517 |
We call them Steiner schools. I like the curriculum in that they have religion, pgilosophy, German etc which my state schools never had. But my step mother is s trained Steiner kindy teacher and I find their belief that under 7 year old are basically still unfinished and not capable of anything academic at odds with a gifted child. My 4 year old did know what the numbers meant and didn't need physical activity to understand the concept of two and he was plenty ready to read at 5. ITA - found this by the way. You may have to copy and pastes as I am techno challenged, however it is a pro/against discusiion involving actual steiner parents, makes interesting reading http://www.mothering.com/forum/370-parenting-gifted-child/1216916-waldorf-gifted-child.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,298
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,298 |
Here is what I learned from clicking through a couple links on that thread. Children are apparently seated in class according to their temperaments. Everything here is quoted directly from this website. The Four Temperaments According to Rudolf Steiner- Melancholic (tall and slender): The physical body as such expresses itself only in itself.
- Phlegmatic (have protruding shoulders): The etheric body expresses itself in the glandular system.
- Sanguine (the sanguine are the most normal): The astral body expresses itself physically in the nervous system.
- Choleric (short stout build so that the head almost sinks down into the body): The ego expresses itself in the circulation of the blood.
At first, it may surprise you that Waldorf teachers are trained to consider the effect of past lives and karmic destiny of your child. However, it is important to be sensitive and keep an open mind with regards to this practice. You can learn more about reincarnation and karma on the Anthroposophy page. [sigh] As they say...do people really believe this stuff?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Maybe I'm just not that, er-- capable-- but I'm not sure I even understand those descriptions. I mean, sure, tall and slender. I think I know what that phrase means. Melancholic-- I thought I had a good idea what that one is, as well. It is the rest of it that makes no sense to me. At all. The physical body as such(1) expresses itself(2) only in itself(3) (1) as such? Meaning that there is some metaphorical context here of which I've been unaware? Or is this some indication that "physical body" needs airquotes or something? I have no idea what this phrase means in this context. (2) What-- kinetically? Like interpretive dance? Er-- or maybe it means some other kind of 'expression' of-- well, stuff. Metabolically? Developmentally? Which part of the human body, exactly? Does this mean neurologically/orthopedically, or maybe immunologically? Inquiring minds really want to know-- and no, I'm not being entire facetious. I'm truly insanely curious about what this phrase is intended to mean. (3) Through movement? Again, this one is feeling slippery to me until I understand (2) above-- but assuming that this means kinetically, just for example, that seems like a fairly obvious way to express... stuff. For a 2 or 3yo almost certainly this is going to be a preferred mode of self-expression. I just can't quite shake the feeling that this isn't about individual self-expression the way that I understand it. More like-- expression of-- um, I'm not exactly sure. I'm suspicious that this sounds a lot like Transcendentalism run amok. We have some trouble even with Thoreau, I hasten to add. So it could be that it's just a problem with my own family and understanding certain types of philosophical expression. In summary, I'm pretty sure that I know where my seat is in a Steiner environment. I think SuperNanny calls it "the naughty spot."  ------- In other news about why vaccination is not, in point of fact, merely a personal choice, but also a public health decision: Disneyland Measles Outbreak Grows, Sparks Concern.On the other hand, none of them are Waldorf families (well, I hope not, anyway) because being in Waldorf means not succumbing to pervasive pop culture like Disney, and actually (from what I hear) one must sign a contract saying that you won't vacation at the Magic Kingdom, among other things. Note that at least one infected individual was vaccinated, and two were too young to be vaccinated.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
(1) as such? Meaning that there is some metaphorical context here of which I've been unaware? Or is this some indication that "physical body" needs airquotes or something? I have no idea what this phrase means in this context. You are just using the wrong metaphysical model, I think. It seems to be talking about the mechanistic biological body, which actually does express itself as such, so they actually got this one right. That's actually problem with things like cancer, too. It expresses itself quite well.
|
|
|
|
|
