{"corpus":"steiner","locus":"GA 18/p01c08/p030","lang":"en","edition":"AP1973","edition_basis":null,"is_original":false,"is_default_edition":true,"text":"Hegel's mode of world and life conception contains an element that can produce doubts and questions. Hegel's point of departure is pure thinking, the abstract idea, which he himself once called “an oyster-like, gray or entirely black” being (in a letter to Goethe on February 20, 1821), of which he maintained at the same time should be considered the “representation of God as he is in his eternal essence before the creation of nature and a finite spirit.” The aim that he reaches is the individual human spirit endowed with a content of its own, through whom first comes to light what led only a shadow-like existence in a gray, oyster-like element. This can easily be understood to mean that a *personality* as a living self-conscious being does not exist outside the human spirit. Hegel derives the content-saturated element that we *experience* within ourselves from the ideal element that we *obtain through thinking.* It is quite comprehensible that a spirit of a certain inner disposition felt repulsed by this view of world and life. Only thinkers of such a selfless devotion as that of *Karl Rosenkranz*(1805–1879) could so completely find their way into Hegel's movement of thought and, in such perfect agreement with Hegel, create for themselves structures of ideas that appear like a rebirth of Hegel's own thought structure in a less impressive medium. Others could not understand how man is to be enlightened through pure idea with respect to the infinity and variety of the impressions that pour in on him as he directs his observations toward nature, crowded as it is with colors and forms, and how he is to profit if he lifts his soul from experiences in the world of sensation, feeling and perception-guided imagination to the frosty heights of pure thought. To interpret Hegel in this fashion is to misunderstand him, but it is quite comprehensible that he should have been misunderstood in this way.","text_trust":"verbatim","quote_safe":true,"title":"VIII. Reactionary World Conceptions","site_heading":null,"date":null,"location":null,"word_count":321,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/en/ga/18/p01c08/p030","alignment_confidence":"medium","alignment_reason":"beads:embedding","two_voice_volume":false,"translation_credit":null,"edition_coverage":{"de":["original"],"en":["AP1973"]},"available_versions":[{"lang":"en","edition":"AP1973","edition_basis":null,"is_original":false,"is_default_edition":true,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/en/ga/18/p01c08/p030","paragraph_aligned":true}],"german_anchor":{"de_prefix":"l08","de_passages":[{"locus":"GA 18/l08/p013","url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/18/l08/p013"}],"bead_confidence":"medium","length_check":{"de_words":1237,"en_words":718,"ratio":0.58,"partial":true},"correspondence":"partial","note":"PARTIAL CORRESPONDENCE. The aligner paired 1 German passage(s) with 3 English, but the English side holds only ~57% of the German side's length (718 vs 1237 words). One or more of the German passages above is likely NOT represented in this translation at all. Do not treat the English as carrying their content: read the German passages directly, and if you need to quote, quote the German. Absence of a phrase from the English here is NOT evidence it is absent from Steiner."},"witness_completeness":{"ratio":null,"band":"no_original","note":null,"word_count":8603,"original_word_count":null,"may_be_abridged":false},"witness_quality":{"translator":{"status":"unknown","warning":"No translator is recorded for this edition. An unattributed translation cannot be weighed as a witness: you cannot tell which hand made the choices in it. Cite the German for anything load-bearing."},"entity_parity":{"status":"discrepancy","checked_against":["GA 18/l08/p013"],"missing_from_translation":["Fichte"],"present_only_in_translation":[],"bead_confidence":"medium","bead_length_ratio":0.58,"likely_cause":"alignment","note":"NAME MISMATCH, and the alignment behind it is itself weak (low confidence, or the two sides' lengths contradict the pairing). The more likely cause is that these passages are not counterparts at all rather than that the translation dropped a name. Verify the pairing before drawing any conclusion about the translation."},"note":"quote_safe certifies the bytes of this text. This block is about the translation as a WITNESS: who made it, and whether it carries the same names as the original. See witness_completeness for how much of the original this witness holds."}}