People that ruin something good
Instead of make a sabotage
Definitely just bring the power
Over a great strength

The whole itself just break a rule
To cheat and slave the bigotry
Then leave the people who unawares
Overwhelming to everything

Because they just irritate the greatest
They just loving make a nasty thing

People never truely against them
People seems blind over them
Since the good image they built
How bad of the system



Everyone gets anxiousness,

Everyone gets photograph,


Only one person can know

What behind every photograph


All in zoom

Zoom in every sides of a photograph

Zoom out inside the photograph

No photo can zoom without anxiety

Anxiety get killed every zooms

But only one person can know

What meaning about a photograph

In every taken by the owner

Inside a photograph over zooming



A dreamer & healer

Suka kepo soal tipe kepribadian saya, selalu ikut tes psikologi apa aja lah hahah tapi ujung-ujungnya saya masuk kategori INFP. The Healer (Penyembuh) & Dreamer (Pemimpi). Entah aneh atau tidak saya suka aja sama profesi dua ini. Dari awal udah narik perhatian saya soal kepribadian. Tapi, saya selalu mencoba lagi dan lagi tapi pasti ketemu lagi sama si healer/dreamer ini. It’s like a fate, lol. But then, i think God made a gift on me. Somehow, I being blessed and depressed in between my self-essteem. It has been on my mind for a long time. Hahahaha.

Maybe, semua orang sudah tau soal tipe kepribadian ini, apalagi sekarang udah jaman maju. Semua bisa akses internet kapan aja. Yang penting saring yg positive dan bermanfaat saja kalo tidak ingin terjerumus di dunia. Anyhow, I will tell it related to myself.

INFP- In abbreviation of Introverted iNtuitive Feeling Perceiving (Introverted Feeling with Extraverted Intuition). Mostly Fe is hidden over INFPs, yeah that’s the true facts about me. 

INFPs at a Glance

  • Idealistic, mild-mannered, and curious.
  • Eccentric, free-spirited, and unconventional.
  • Imaginative dreamers, who pursue meaning and harmony on the basis of their own frames of reference.
  • Open-minded listeners who seek to understand others without judging them.
  • Are passionate about their own values and ideals, to the point of finding them impossible to reconcile with the world as it exists.
 INFP in a Nutshell

INFPs are imaginative idealists, guided by their own core values and beliefs. To a Healer, possibilities are paramount; the realism of the moment is only of passing concern. They see potential for a better future, and pursue truth and meaning with their own individual flair.

INFPs are sensitive, caring, and compassionate, and are deeply concerned with the personal growth of themselves and others. Individualistic and nonjudgmental, INFPs believe that each person must find their own path. They enjoy spending time exploring their own ideas and values, and are gently encouraging to others to do the same. INFPs are creative and often artistic; they enjoy finding new outlets for self-expression.


INFP Personality (“The Mediator”)

INFP personalities are true idealists, always looking for the hint of good in even the worst of people and events, searching for ways to make things better. While they may be perceived as calm, reserved, or even shy, INFPs have an inner flame and passion that can truly shine. Comprising just 4% of the population, the risk of feeling misunderstood is unfortunately high for the INFP personality type – but when they find like-minded people to spend their time with, the harmony they feel will be a fountain of joy and inspiration.

The Idealist

As an INFP, your primary mode of living is focused internally, where you deal with things according to how you feel about them, or how they fit into your personal value system. Your secondary mode is external, where you take things in primarily via your intuition.

INFPs, more than other iNtuitive Feeling types, are focused on making the world a better place for people. Their primary goal is to find out their meaning in life. What is their purpose? How can they best serve humanity in their lives? They are idealists and perfectionists, who drive themselves hard in their quest for achieving the goals they have identified for themselves

INFPs are highly intuitive about people. They rely heavily on their intuitions to guide them, and use their discoveries to constantly search for value in life. They are on a continuous mission to find the truth and meaning underlying things. Every encounter and every piece of knowledge gained gets sifted through the INFP’s value system, and is evaluated to see if it has any potential to help the INFP define or refine their own path in life. The goal at the end of the path is always the same – the INFP is driven to help people and make the world a better place.

Generally thoughtful and considerate, INFPs are good listeners and put people at ease. Although they may be reserved in expressing emotion, they have a very deep well of caring and are genuinely interested in understanding people. This sincerity is sensed by others, making the INFP a valued friend and confidante. An INFP can be quite warm with people he or she knows well.

INFPs do not like conflict, and go to great lengths to avoid it. If they must face it, they will always approach it from the perspective of their feelings. In conflict situations, INFPs place little importance on who is right and who is wrong. They focus on the way that the conflict makes them feel, and indeed don’t really care whether or not they’re right. They don’t want to feel badly. This trait sometimes makes them appear irrational and illogical in conflict situations. On the other hand, INFPs make very good mediators, and are typically good at solving other people’s conflicts, because they intuitively understand people’s perspectives and feelings, and genuinely want to help them.

INFPs are flexible and laid-back, until one of their values is violated. In the face of their value system being threatened, INFPs can become aggressive defenders, fighting passionately for their cause. When an INFP has adopted a project or job which they’re interested in, it usually becomes a “cause” for them. Although they are not detail-oriented individuals, they will cover every possible detail with determination and vigor when working for their “cause”.

INFPs do not like to deal with hard facts and logic. Their focus on their feelings and the Human Condition makes it difficult for them to deal with impersonal judgment. They don’t understand or believe in the validity of impersonal judgment, which makes them naturally rather ineffective at using it. Most INFPs will avoid impersonal analysis, although some have developed this ability and are able to be quite logical. Under stress, it’s not uncommon for INFPs to mis-use hard logic in the heat of anger, throwing out fact after (often inaccurate) fact in an emotional outburst.

INFPs have very high standards and are perfectionists. Consequently, they are usually hard on themselves, and don’t give themselves enough credit. INFPs may have problems working on a project in a group, because their standards are likely to be higher than other members’ of the group. In group situations, they may have a “control” problem. The INFP needs to work on balancing their high ideals with the requirements of every day living. Without resolving this conflict, they will never be happy with themselves, and they may become confused and paralyzed about what to do with their lives.

INFPs are usually talented writers. They may be awkard and uncomfortable with expressing themselves verbally, but have a wonderful ability to define and express what they’re feeling on paper. INFPs also appear frequently in social service professions, such as counselling or teaching. They are at their best in situations where they’re working towards the public good, and in which they don’t need to use hard logic.

INFPs who function in their well-developed sides can accomplish great and wonderful things, which they will rarely give themselves credit for. Some of the great, humanistic catalysts in the world have been INFPs.

Jungian functional preference ordering:
Dominant: Introverted Feeling
Auxiliary: Extraverted Intuition
Tertiary: Introverted Sensing
Inferior: Extraverted Thinking

Those all about my self, but not really all described in detail or accurate. Somehow, I use it to configure and improve myself. So, do know about yourself and make it real to yourself too. Hahaha. Anyways, all the true artist are INFPS!

Dreamers LEGGO!


Kampretnya Seorang INFP

HAHAHA Ketawa sama diri sendiri

Arip Yeuh!

we are infp

Banyak penelitian yang menjelaskan kalau ada korelasi antara kreativitas dan gangguan mental. Proses berpikir seorang yang memiliki kreativitas tinggi dipercaya memiliki kesamaan dengan skizofrenia. Memang, seorang INFP yang dianggap dianugerahi kreativitas tinggi adalah manusia delusional yang depresif.

Oh ya, INFP itu adalah satu tipe dari 16 tipe kepribadian lainnya dalam instrumen MBTI (Myers-Brigg Type Indicator), tes psikologis kepribadiaan paling sering digunakan. Dan penemu invetori ini adalah seorang INFP, sehingga membuat para INFP merasa sangat tergantung dan menjungjung tinggi hasil tes yang keluar. Mungkin kesalahan terbesar seorang INFP adalah ketika menemukan kalau dirinya INFP, dia jadi bajingan pembenci diri yang justru kagum pada dirinya sendirinya.

View original post 172 more words


(noun) the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

The term is explained in dictionaries such from oxford and cambridges, defined as a noun into as follows:

  • Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
  • The power of self-determination attributed to the will; the quality of being independent of fate or necessity.
  • The state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.
  • The state of being unrestricted and able to move easily.
  • Unrestricted use of something.
  • The state of not being subject to or affected by (something undesirable)
  • British A special privilege or right of access, especially that of full citizenship of a city granted to a public figure as an honour.
  • archaic Familiarity or openness in speech or behaviour.

The Philosophy of Freedom is the fundamental philosophical work of the philosopher and esotericist Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925). It addresses the questions whether and in what sense human beings can be said to be free.

Part One of The Philosophy of Freedom examines the basis for freedom in human thinking, gives an account of the relationship between knowledge and perception, and explores the reliability of thinking as a means to knowledge. In Part Two Steiner analyzes the conditions necessary for human beings to be free, and develops a moral philosophy that he describes as “ethical individualism”. The book’s subtitle, Some results of introspective observation following the methods of natural science, indicates the philosophical method Steiner intends to follow.

Originally published in 1894 in German as Die Philosophie der Freiheit, with a second edition published in 1918, the work has appeared under a number of English titles, including The Philosophy of Freedom, The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity, and Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path.

By the historical views, freedom can be explained as follows:

Steiner had wanted to write a philosophy of freedom since at least 1880. The appearance of The Philosophy of Freedom in 1894. It was preceded by his publications on Goethe, focusing on epistemology and the philosophy of science, particularly Goethe the Scientist (1883) and The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe’s World Conception (1886). In 1891, Steiner presented his doctoral dissertation, an epistemological study that includes discussion of Kant’s and Fichte’s theories of knowledge. A revised version of the thesis was published a year later in book form as Truth and Knowledge: Introduction to a Philosophy of Freedom., dedicated to Eduard von Hartmann]. In the Preface to The Philosophy of Freedom itself, Steiner described the aim of the book: knowledge should become “organically alive”. “All real philosophers have been artists in the realm of concepts. For them, human ideas were their artists’ materials and scientific method their artistic technique.”

While a student in Vienna, Steiner attended some of the lectures of Franz Brentano, an important precursor of the phenomenological movement in philosophy (see School of Brentano). Like the later phenomenologists, Steiner was seeking a way to solve the subject–object problem. Steiner’s approach to freedom was also in part inspired by Schiller’s On the Aesthetic Education of Man and a response to the scientific works of Goethe, whom Steiner believed had not focused sufficiently on the role of thinking in developing inner freedom.

The knowledge about Freedom

Steiner was also deeply affected as a young man by Kant’s argument in the Critique of Pure Reason that we cannot know things as they are in themselves, and he devotes a long chapter of The Philosophy of Freedom, “Are there Limits to Knowledge?”, to a refutation of this view, arguing that there are in principle no limits to knowledge. This claim is important to freedom, because for Steiner freedom involves knowing the real basis of our actions. If this basis cannot be known, then freedom is not possible. Steiner’s argument in favour of freedom also responds to determinists such as Spinoza, for whom human action is just as much determined as anything else in the necessity that governs nature as a whole.

Other philosophers discussed or mentioned in The Philosophy of Freedom include George Berkeley, Pierre Jean George Cabanis, Descartes, Ernst Haeckel, Robert Hamerling, von Hartmann, Hegel, David Hume, Johannes Kreyenbuehl, Otto Liebmann, Friedrich Paulsen, Paul Rée, Johannes Rehmke, Schelling, Schopenhauer, Herbert Spencer. and David Strauss.

Steiner begins exploring the nature of human freedom by accepting “that an action, of which the agent does not know why he performs it, cannot be free,” but asking what happens when a person becomes conscious of his or her motives for acting. He proposes (1) that through introspective observation we can become conscious of the motivations of our actions, and (2) that the sole possibility of human freedom, if it exists at all, must be sought in an awareness of the motives of our actions.

In Chapter 2, “The Fundamental Desire for Knowledge,” Steiner discusses how an awareness of the division between mind, or subject, and world, or object, gives rise to a desire to reestablish a unity between these poles. After criticizing solutions to this problem provided by dualism in the philosophy of mind and several forms of monism as one-sided, Steiner suggests that only by locating nature’s manifestations within our subjective nature can we overcome this division.

In Chapter 3, “Thinking in the Service of Knowledge,” Steiner observes that when confronted with percepts, we feel obliged to think about and add concepts to these: to observation we add thinking. Steiner seeks to demonstrate that what he considers the primary antithesis between observation and thinking underlies all other related antitheses and philosophical distinctions, such as subject vs. object, appearance vs. reality, and so on. For most objects of observation, he points out, we cannot observe both the percept and our thinking about this percept simultaneously, for a tree and thinking about a tree are fundamentally different; we can only attend to one at a time. In contrast, we can simultaneously observe thinking and observe our thoughts about thinking, for here the percept (thinking) and our thinking about the percept consist of the same element (thought): Just thinking and thinking about thinking are the same process; observing the latter, we are simultaneously observing the former.

Normally, however, for just that reason we do not pay attention to the process of thinking, only its results, the thoughts themselves: “The first observation which we make about thinking is therefore this: that it is the unobserved element in our ordinary mental and spiritual life”. Steiner connects this “first observation” to the fact that thinking is entirely due to our own activity. It does not appear before us unless we ourselves produce it. Nevertheless, when I apprehend the content of thinking, a concept, this is self-justifying, in the sense that it can be asked why I feel this or that way about something, but not why it produces in me this or that concept. Such a question would be “simply meaningless”. Their contents justify the relations of concepts to one another.

Furthermore, when observing my thinking, it is always a past instance of thinking that I observe, not a present one. That the thinker and the observer of the thinker are one and the same explains why I can know thinking “more intimately and immediately than any other process in the world” This is what Steiner calls the transparency of our thinking process. To appreciate this point, we must be able to adapt to our own thinking the “exceptional” procedure mentioned above: we must apply it to itself. If we are unable to do this, and we think of thinking as a brain-process, it is because we do not see thinking, because we are unable to take up the exceptional position needed to do so.

Steiner takes Descartes’ dictum, “I think, therefore I am,” to signify the truth that “I am certain . . . that [thinking] exists in the sense that I myself bring it forth,” However, Steiner advances the objection (common to many others, beginning in Descartes’ own time), that the further claim that I am is more problematic.

Steiner’s full view is found in the following passage.

…thinking must never be regarded as merely a subjective activity. Thinking lies beyond subject and object. It produces these two concepts just as it produces all others. When, therefore, I, as thinking subject, refer a concept to an object, we must not regard this reference as something purely subjective. It is not the subject that makes the reference, but thinking. The subject does not think because it is a subject; rather it appears to itself as a subject because it can think. The activity exercised by thinking beings is thus not merely subjective. Rather is it something neither subjective nor objective, that transcends both these concepts. I ought never to say that my individual subject thinks, but much more that my individual subject lives by the grace of thinking.

The Chapter on thinking is followed by a shorter one on perception, Chapter 4. It contains two main and very important points. Steiner points out the inconsistency of treating all our perceptions as mere subjective mental images inside the brain. If that were true, the perception of the brain itself would have to be a mere subjective mental image inside the brain! In that case the basis for our knowledge of the brain would be completely undermined. The scientific claim is made, on the basis of physiology and psychology, that our percepts are produced by a causal process within the organism and hence are subjective. This is called “critical idealism” But physiology and psychology are based on these percepts. So our knowledge of physiology and psychology is subjective. But then it cannot validate the claim that percepts are subjective. Furthermore, critical idealism leaves unaccounted for the passage from the brain process to the sensation.

What are the consequences of such a view of perception for the concept of knowledge? In Chapter 5 Steiner presents his concept of knowledge. Human beings are two-sided, as they both think and also perceive. The two activities together give a complete view of the world. Knowledge is the union of what is produced in thinking, the concept, and what is produced in perceiving, the percept. Steiner argues that there can be no relationship among the objects of perception other than what is revealed in the ideal element produced by thinking, the concept. Accordingly, the relation between some perceived object and ourselves is also an ideal one.

An important passage analyzes the view that we cannot experience the world itself but only subjective images somewhere inside the brain, or in the soul inside the brain. This view is based on treating the perceptual relationship between self and world as other than ideal, as naively real, just as we perceive it, as a process derived in its content from perception itself.

At the end of Chapter 5 Steiner completes the view of perception begun in Chapter 4. What is the percept that perceiving produces? Steiner rejects this question. ‘The question asked in this way is absurd.’ For a percept is the determinate content of the perception, and its “what?” – what it is – can only refer to this content.

We can become conscious of our thought processes in a way that we cannot be of our feelings, will or sense perceptions. We know that what we experience in thinking is exactly what it seems, so that appearance and reality become one. By contrast, our feelings’ meaning is not directly apparent, while we only perceive the meaning of a percept after some form of conceptual framework has been brought to bear (for example, we give the right spatial meaning to the visually converging lines of railroad tracks through our understanding of perspective). Mathematics is an example of thinking in which thought itself forms the perceptions; no sense-perceptions are needed to form a basis for mathematical principles. In this sense mathematics could be said to be one discipline that studies the inner aspect of reality.

Steiner proposes that the apparent dualism of experience can be overcome by discovering the inner and initially hidden unity of perception and thinking. By observing a thinking process sufficiently intensively, perceiving and thinking can begin to unify. This is knowledge. By the same token, a clear-eyed study of what is revealed in observation can lead to appropriate concepts – thinking.

Steiner argues that thinking is more pervasive in our ordinary perceiving than we often recognize. If, for example, we had not as infants learned, unconsciously, to think with our eyes and limbs, then our eyes, even if functioning perfectly in a physical sense, would see only something like what the philosopher William James referred to as a “blooming buzzing confusion,” or what Steiner referred to as a highly chaotic stage of the “given.” We would not perceive spatial or temporal structure or recognize distinct qualities. If that conclusion seems surprising, that is because the thinking-in-perceiving learned in childhood becomes habitual and automatic long before we attain fully consciousness, so we rarely become aware of the key role cognition plays in even the simplest perceptions. Similarly, we are unconscious of the ways we perceive our thinking.

‘Our next task must be to define the concept of “mental picture” more closely’, Steiner writes at the end of the Chapter 6. With this concept we arrive at the relation of knowledge to the individual, and to life, and feeling. After an interesting refutation of the subjectivity of percepts, Steiner describes a mental picture as an intuition or thought related to an individual percept. And so the mental picture is defined as an individualized concept.

Experience is the “sum total” of mental pictures of the individual. But there is more to the human being’s cognitive inventory than percept, concept and mental picture. There is the relation of these things to the Ego; and this is feeling. Feeling gives our personal relation to the world, and we oscillate between it and the “universal world process” given in thinking. The mental pictures we form gives our mental life an individual stamp, and relates it to our own life.

Chapter 7 takes up the consequences of the view that knowledge consists of the restoration of the unity of the content of the percept and the concept. Steiner calls those who make the epistemological distinction into a permanent metaphysical one dualists. For the monist ‘The world is given to us as a duality, and knowledge transforms it into a unity.’ Working with an irresolvable distinction, the dualist is bound to assert that there are limits to knowledge: ‘the “in itself” of a thing.’ For the monist there is no in-principle limit to knowledge.

For monism in Steiner’s sense there are only concepts and percepts, which, united, form the object; for the dualist there is the subject, the object, the percept, and the concept. We must not conceive of the process of perception as though it is naïvely real, as we do when we take perception to be a causal effect of the things as they are in themselves on us. Metaphysical realism is the view that there is an object in the world that is imperceptible as it is in itself, but is also to be conceived naïve realistically. It ‘is a contradictory mixture of naïve realism and idealism. Its hypothetical [elements] are imperceptible entities endowed with the qualities of percepts’. For the monist, the process of perception is an ideal relation. The metaphysical realist, however, is left with the unanswerable question how the metaphysically real objects are converted into subjective percepts. Here Steiner can be read as giving his account of the structure and basis of what is today called the mind-body problem.

Steiner’s summary of Part I of The Philosophy of Freedom, at the start of Chapter 8 in Part II, contains the following passage:

The world comes to meet me as a multiplicity, a sum of separate details. As a human being, I am myself one of these details, an entity among other entities. We call this form of the world simply the given and—insofar as we do not develop it through conscious activity but find it ready-made—we call it percept. Within the world of percepts, we perceive ourselves. But if something did not emerge out of this self-percept that proved capable of linking both percepts in general and also the sum of all other percepts with the percept of our self, our self-percept would remain simply one among many. This emerging something, however, is no longer a mere percept; nor is it, like percepts, simply present. It is produced through activity and initially appears linked to what we perceive as our self, but its inner meaning reaches beyond the self. It adds conceptual determinates to individual percepts, but these conceptual determinates relate to one another and are grounded in a whole. It determines conceptually what is achieved through self-perception conceptually, just as it determines all other percepts. It places this as the subject or “I” over against objects. This “something” is thinking, and the conceptual determinates are concepts and ideas

The reality of freedom

Steiner begins the second part of the book by emphasizing the role of self-awareness in objective thinking. Here he modifies the usual description of inner and outer experience by pointing out that our feelings, for example, are given to us as naively as outer perceptions. Both of these, feelings and perceptions, tell about objects we are interested in: the one about ourselves, the other about the world. Both require the help of thinking to penetrate the reasons that they arise, to comprehend their inner message. The same is true of our will. Whereas our feelings tell how the world affects us, our will tells how we would affect the world. Neither attains to true objectivity, for both mix the world’s existence and our inner life in an unclear way. Steiner emphasizes that we experience our feelings and will – and our perceptions as well – as being more essentially part of us than our thinking; the former are more basic, more natural. He celebrates this gift of natural, direct experience, but points out that this experience is still dualistic in the sense that it only encompasses one side of the world.

With regard to freedom of the will, Steiner observes that a key question is how the will to action arises in the first place. Steiner describes to begin with two sources for human action: on the one hand, the driving forces springing from our natural being, from our instincts, feelings, and thoughts insofar as these are determined by our character – and on the other hand, various kinds of external motives we may adopt, including the dictates of abstract ethical or moral codes. In this way, both nature and culture bring forces to bear on our will and soul life. Overcoming these two elements, neither of which is individualized, we can achieve genuinely individualized intuitions that speak to the particular situation at hand. By overcoming a slavish or automatic response to the dictates of both our ‘lower’ drives and conventional morality, and by orchestrating a meeting place of objective and subjective elements of experience, we find the freedom to choose how to think and act (Wilson Ch. 9).

Freedom for Steiner does not consist in acting out everything subjective within us, but in acting out of love, thoughtfully and creatively. In this way we can love our own actions, which are unique and individual to us, rather than stemming from obedience to external moral codes or compulsive physical drives. Both of the latter constitute limitations on freedom:

Whether his unfreedom is forced on him by physical means or by moral laws, whether man is unfree because he follows his unlimited sexual desire or because he is bound by the fetters of conventional morality, is quite immaterial from a certain point of view…let us not assert that such a man can rightly call his actions his own, seeing that he is driven to them by a force other than himself.

Freedom arises most clearly at the moment when a human being becomes active in pure, individualized thinking; this is, for Steiner, spiritual activity. Achieving freedom is then accomplished by learning to let an ever larger portion of one’s actions be determined by such individualized thought, rather than by habit, addiction, reflex, or involuntary or unconscious motives. Steiner differentiates pure thinking into “moral intuition” (formulation of individual purposes), “moral imagination” (creative strategies for realizing these larger purposes in the concrete situation), and “moral technique” (the practical capacity to accomplish what was intended). He suggests that we only achieve free deeds when we find an ethically impelled but particularized response to the immediacy of a given situation. Such a response will always be radically individual; it cannot be predicted or prescribed..

Steiner’s ethical philosophy is neither utilitarian nor deontological. For Steiner, the highest morality exists when a person acts in the world through deeds of love realized by means of individually developed and contextually-sensitive moral imaginations,[19] This of course raises the difficulty of the one who loves evil and acts on the basis of this love. Are his actions of “the highest morality”?

This all is by way of introduction and recapitulation. Steiner then introduces the principle that we can act out of the compulsions of our natural being (reflexes, drives, desires) or out of the compulsion of ethical principles, and that neither of these leaves us free. Between them, however, is an individual insight, a partly situational ethic, that arises neither from abstract principles nor from our bodily impulses. A deed that arises in this way can be said to be truly free; it is also both unpredictable and wholly individual. Here Steiner articulates his fundamental maxim of social life:

Live through deeds of love, and let others live with understanding for each person’s unique intentions.

Here he describes a polarity of influences on human nature, stating that morality transcends both the determining factors of bodily influences and those of convention:

A moral misunderstanding, a clash, is out of the question between people who are morally free. Only one who is morally unfree, who obeys bodily instincts or conventional demands of duty, turns away from a fellow human being if the latter does not obey the same instincts and demands as himself.

For Steiner, true morality, the highest good, is the universal mediated by the profoundly individual and situational; it depends upon our achieving freedom from both our inner drives and outer pressures. To achieve such free deeds, we must cultivate our moral imagination, our ability to imaginatively create ethically sound and practical solutions to new situations, in fact, to forge our own ethical principles and to transform these flexibly as needed – not in the service of our own egotistical purposes, but in the face of new demands and unique situations. This is only possible through moral intuitions, immediate experiences of spiritual realities that underlie moral judgments. Moral imagination and intuition allow us to realize our subjective impulses in objective reality, thus creating bridges between the spiritual influence of our subjectivity and the natural influence of the objective world in deeds whereby “that which is natural is spiritual, that which is spiritual is natural”.

Toward the end of the second part of the book, Steiner writes that “The unique character of the idea, by means of which I distinguish myself as ‘I’, makes me an individual.” And then, “An act the grounds for which lie in the ideal part of my nature is free.” Steiner there is using the term ideal to refer to pure ideation or pure thinking in Steiner’s sense. “The action is therefore neither stereotyped, carried out according to set rules, nor is it performed automatically in response to an external impetus; the action is determined solely through its ideal content.” What is individual in us is to be distinguished from what is generic by its ideal character. If an act proceeds out of genuine thinking, or practical reason, then it is free.

Steiner concludes by pointing out that to achieve this level of freedom, we must lift ourselves out of our group-existence: out of the prejudices we receive from our family, nation, ethnic group and religion, and all that we inherit from the past that limits our creative and imaginative capacity to meet the world directly. Only when we realize our potential to be a unique individual are we free. Thus, it lies in our freedom to achieve freedom; only when we actively strive towards freedom do we have some chance of attaining it.

Before 1900, Steiner was laying the epistemological basis of his thought. Steiner mentioned that The Philosophy of Freedom was intended to give the philosophical foundations for what had been outlined in his earlier work Truth and Science (1892).

In works written after 1900, Steiner began to explain how thinking can evolve to become an organ of perception of higher worlds of living, creative, spiritual beings. Steiner frequently referred to The Philosophy of Freedom in his later lectures and in written works. Near the end of his life, he suggested that The Philosophy of Freedom would outlive all his other works.

Steiner’s principal works on philosophy include:

  • 1886 The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe’s World-Conception. Steiner considered this to be “the epistemological foundation and justification for every thing I said and published later. It speaks of the essential being of knowing activity that opens the way from the sense perceptible world into the spiritual one.”
  • 1892 Truth and Science (or Truth and Knowledge), dedicated to Eduard von Hartmann.
  • 1894 The Philosophy of Freedom. This presented the philosophical foundations for what had been outlined in Truth and Science, and its line of thought led to the same goal as Steiner’s later book Theosophy: An Introduction to the Supersensible Knowledge of the World and the Destination of Man (1904). It contained, he claimed, the entire content, in a philosophical form, of what he later developed explicitly as anthroposophy.
  • 1914 A Brief Outline of an Approach to Anthroposophy, chapter 8 in the book The Riddles of Philosophy Presented in an Outline of Its History.

Editorial history

The first edition of Die Philosophie der Freiheit was published in 1893/4. A second revised edition appeared in 1918. Further German editions reprinted the 1918 text until 1973, when a revised edition was produced based on Steiner’s corrections of the galley proofs of the 1918 edition. Minor changes, including corrections to some of Steiner’s citations, were made in the 1987 German edition.

The first edition included the following passage Steiner removed from later editions: “We no longer believe that there is a norm to which we must all strive to conform. Nothing is accepted as valid, unless it springs from the roots of individuality. The saying Each one of us must choose his hero in whose footsteps he toils up to Olympus no longer holds for us. If only we probe deep enough into the very heart of our being, there dwells something noble, something worthy of development.”

In the appendix added to the 1918 edition, Steiner stated emphatically that the monism “of thought” proposed in his book was quite different from what Eduard von Hartmann and others called “epistemological” monism.

While The Philosophy of Freedom is a literal translation of the German title (Die Philosophie der Freiheit), Steiner suggested at the time of the first English edition in 1916 that the title The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity be used as it would more accurately characterize the book’s theme of freedom as a dynamic process of development, as opposed to the fixed state connoted by the etymology of “freedom” (dom=a state or condition).



source: all references in wikipedia and oxford dictionary

Just Something

“South and North”

Someone is walking through the sea sore while lift-up ahead to see the beautiful  of world. Another one who currently stays in the prison is seeing a horrible side of this world.  Unconsciously, they are who feel the otherwise feeling. Their beliefs and minds are incomparable straight from what it looks.

There are many people around us who feel happiness, sorrow, madness, but in  otherwise their situation is not similar to the feelings. Sometimes, we unconsciously realize the fact. The real situation showed from the looks of pathetic and heartbreaking.  As we can result,  how much we get of things are much as the sadness will come. It depends on the way of how we get the things. Sometimes, something that we wasted will make us sad. In other words, we somehow use something by no intention will end for a pleasing .

That something is only known by ourselves. Something that may significant for ourselves. It even made us frustrated and happy. Even if it’s not a big issue at  first, it will end differently. Occasionally, we made a precious thing but it is considered as the unimportant thing by everyone.  At that time, we can not realize it , but people do realize it first. Even though our best friends who mostly trusted and precious for us, they will not fully do the same with us. Only our family, siblings, even strangers who just understand us that we are important in their life.

The advisable way for us is we should figure out something at first and think the possible result we could get in ahead.

I, here, writing this post in a pathetic situation for myself, but I do feel happy as soon as showing my feeling by doing this. I wish this post can useful for us and you as a reader can get an inspiration for the better life.

Just something

“South and North”

Seseorang sedang berjalan menuju tepi pantai menengadahkan kepalanya melihat betapa indahnya dunia ini jika dapat melihat. Seseorang yang lain sedang berada di jeruji besi memikirkan betapa mengerikan dunia ini. Tanpa disadari mereka lah yang merasakan sebaliknya. Perasaan dan pikiran mereka tak sebanding lurus dengan apa yang mereka lihat.

Ada banyak orang sekeliling kita yang merasakan kebahagiaan, kesedihan, kemarahan, namun disisi lain kondisi mereka berbeda dengan apa yang mereka rasakan. Terkadang kita sendiri tak menyadari akan hal ini. Kondisi yang sesungguhnya membahagiakan terkesan sangat menyedihkan bahkan memilukan. Seperti apa yang telah kita dapatkan, sebanyak apapun yang kita peroleh sebanyak pula kesedihan yang kita dapatkan. Tergantung bagaimana kita mendapatkannya. Terkadang sesuatu yang kita sia-siakan akan membuat kita bersedih. Terkadang pula sesuatu yang kita pergunakan dengan asal malah berakhir membahagiakan.

Sesuatu itu hanya kita yang tahu sendiri. Sesuatu yang sangat penting bagi diri kita sendiri. Sesuatu yang membuat kita frustasi bahkan bahagia. Sekalipun itu tidak penting pada awalnya, itu akan berakhir lain dan berubah sebaliknya. Adakalanya kita membuat sesuatu berharga tapi tak dianggap penting.  Saat kita tak menyadarinya orang lain bahkan menyadari ini lebih awal. Bahkan seseorang yang kita anggap dekat dan berarti. Seperti halnya seorang sahabat yang kita anggap berarti, tidak sepenuhnya mereka akan kembali menganggap kita berarti. Hanya orang tua, saudara bahkan orang asing yang mampu mengerti dan menganggap kita berarti.

Sebaiknya kita memahaminya lebih awal dan memikirkan apa yang akan terjadi selanjutnya serta apa dampak yang akan muncul.

Saya sendiri disini mengetik dengan kondisi yang menyedihkan, tetapi saya bahagia dapat mengeluarkan perasaan saya dengan menulis. Semoga tulisan ini dapat berguna bagi kita semua dan mengilhami pembaca untuk kehidupan yang lebih baik.