An analysis of the nature and implications of the Goethean scientific framework
With the advent of mechanical philosophy and its associated division of mind and matter came a fundamental shift in the sciences, especially the biological sciences, with things being studied assumed to be devoid of any metaphysical or animated principles and correlated spiritual essence. All organisms, including animals and humans were viewed as law abiding machines which adhere to a realistic, deterministic and reductionist Newtonian physics. Mechanistic philosophy understands the true picture of reality as simply as a collection of individual parts, as “all parts and functions are interconnected and work together within the context of the whole creature.” [i]
What is not generally taken into account while studying these specimens is an attendance “to how and why the parts are actually members of the whole organism,” [ii] how they interact together and the mutual effects of these combined relationships to create an emergent meaning that is more than the sum of its parts. Classic evolutionary science has focused more on the parts rather than the whole. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe proposed another perspective of the relationship between humans and nature, with Goethe viewing humanity as a part of nature, not separate from it.
The Goethean approach emphasizes a different mode of knowing, one more sympathetic with mysticism and religion than that of modern science. Modern science does not furnish us with a complete knowledge of nature while the Goethean approach to knowledge yields more comprehensive and satisfying investigative results with the advantage of facilitating the reintegration of science and religion. The goals of this essay are to describe two fundamental ways to study nature, to define the Goethean approach to scientific investigation and its associated methodology while illustrating how this perspective differs from that of modern science and finally to illuminate the far reaching implications of Goethean science including its ability to facilitate the reunification of religion and science.
There are two fundamental ways to study nature, via discursive methods or a participatory methods. The discursive approach is based on the conscious use of reasoning to obtain knowledge gained by subject-object differentiation while, conversely, the participatory approach is knowledge based on intuition and gained by subject-object fusion. In the former, dominant in the modern scientific framework, an existential distance is maintained between humans and nature, humans are viewed as separate from nature and an attempt is made to remove human senses and emotion as a source or error, with the position that emotions are distortive qualities. In the participatory approach, humans engage with and are an integral part of nature. The intellect allows for a direct awareness, an emotional understanding of more than what is just transmitted via the senses.
The participatory approach to knowledge is the primary methodology that Goethe employed in his investigations of science and nature. Epistemologically, the two modes of knowing, the discursive and the participatory work in conjunction. Modern science is focused on the subject-object distinction. Goethean science realizes a sympathy between subject and object, with the observer receptive to the phenomena on its own terms, with the study of nature proceeding in a loving and caring fashion rather than the cold distant one of modern science.
Goethe realizes that nature invokes emotions in us and emphasizes that the researcher should employ these emotions to assist in attuning with the phenomena in a process that Goethe terms a “delicate empiricism.” [iii] This is a ‘top-down’ approach versus the ‘bottom-up’ approach of modern science, which studies discrete fundamental elements in order to attempt to ascertain the holistic nature of a phenomenon. Modern science makes a clear distinction between what are referred to as primary qualities, those that are directly perceived by our senses and secondary qualities, those that contemplative and intuitive, while assuming that the primary qualities are quantitatively objective and defining secondary qualities as qualitatively subjective.
The Goethean approach is a method of critical reflection of how one derives understanding of a phenomenon. This method takes one inside the entity being contemplated with the goal being to metaphorically become one with the object and to participate in the experience of the object. The intent being to determine what it is like to be that entity, similar to Thomas Nagel’s profound essay on what it would be like to be a bat.
This seems an abstract notion so how does it work? Goethean principles of scientific inquiry are reflected in its methodology, a similar process to Husserl’s and Heidegger’s phenomenological method. Goethe submits that it is possible to train ourselves in such a fashion, to reflect on the understanding of what makes something true, to rework our thinking apparatus so that our sense perceptions become objective when we consider an object. Prior to applying organizing principles to the phenomena under study, a special mental faculty must be primed and the mind prepared for intense intentional focus. To engage with the participatory form of knowing, one must be extremely attentive to the organism under study and its environment because “when a phenomenon is approached with alert senses and with plasticity and openness, it is the phenomenon itself that comes to guide the cognitive patterns in the researcher’s mind.” [iv] Under varying environmental conditions, multiple aspects of the organism are considered and while maintaining an openness to self-corrections, conclusions then drawn about these relationships and their effects. Following an adequately lengthy period of time, avoiding the temptation of haste, a theory is formulated. Through sustained observation, detailed impressions are reconstituted in the imagination to coherently relate these ideas in order to impart a lawfulness to the phenomenon with the goal being the discovery of a law that is intrinsic to the organism or phenomenon under study…to let the object speak for itself.
When one pauses to contemplate a beautifully sublime view such as a sunset or a mountain range and a sense of wonder is felt, a state of awe ensues, a participatory experience occurs, one engages with the phenomena. A cognizant coherence emerges with one recognizing that all that is material is permeated with spiritual meaning. During periods of deep intense contemplation of an entity, an awareness appears to a receptive mind, a feeling of unity occurs which pervades the consciousness while the interconnectedness of the whole, to not only its parts and its surrounding environment, but with the observer himself comes into clear focus. A realization that there is something more to reality, something divine, a comprehension of something much bigger than the human dimension materializes.
Unlike Kant, who thinks we are forever separated from reality, Goethe acknowledges that although our knowledge of the world is filtered through pre-conceived concepts, our mind is constructed in such a fashion that we have access to an underlying reality, an invisible dimension (as in invisible to the senses), which represents the true nature of all things. Careful contemplation can truly express the reality of a phenomenon.
It is imperative to emphasize it is necessary to withhold the temptation to develop a theory in haste as appropriate time must be taken due to the complexity of the interactivity between the relative systems and subsystems. Although the aim is to discover, the investigator must employ patience and realize that due to the complexity of the problem, this ‘lawfulness’ may never be discovered during the lifetime of the observer.
Historically, it is common in modern science for assumptions to come to be seen as facts, such as the assumption the secondary qualities are subjective, prompting many mainstream scientists to criticize Goethe’s approach as non-scientific, since it focuses more on these secondary qualities and does not provide ‘factual’ quantitative explanations. Goethe rejects both the theory that primary qualities are completely objective and that the secondary qualities are subjective. For Goethe, these secondary qualities are not subjective as ascertained by conventional science, as since they are an integral part of nature, they can be seen as objective. Although Goethe focuses more on the secondary qualities, he certainly does not discount the primary qualities. He clearly realizes the value of primary qualities and that the use of primary concepts must also be employed and integrated into the investigative process.
In at least one aspect, the quantum physics of modern science seems to confirm Goethean theory. This unity, this interconnectedness of reality as perceived through the Goethean approach is supported and even validated by the implications of recent discoveries in quantum mechanics. The so called ‘observer effect,’ details of which are beyond the scope of this paper, challenges the perspective that humans are completely independent of nature, as experimental observers cannot detach themselves from the phenomenon they are observing. This demonstrates that the nature of reality is not always as it seems.
It is important to note that the Goethean approach is not a rejection of modern science, it simply purports that is has complementary function. Goethe recognizes the validity of the mechanistic theory however realizes this is not the full picture of the cosmos. A purely quantitative approach is inadequate for the study of the cosmos, the qualitative aspects must also be taken into account. Although Goethe is critical of modern science, he does not propose to dispose of it, he just warns us to be aware of the limitations of the conventional approach.
Most think that science is based on facts. In order to have facts we must first have initial concepts, assumptions on what the nature of a fact even is. Although these preliminary concepts are necessary to make sense of the initial observation, these are neither static nor necessarily correct. However, the fact that these base assumptions of modern science may be suspect or even faulty does not necessarily detract from the value of its discoveries and inventions.
The mechanistic viewpoint, with a focus on the parts instead of the whole, only provides a limited or partial understanding thus furnishes only a partial solution to questions of the cosmos. A much richer fabric of reality is overlooked as these parts are integral to not only each other, but to their environment as well, and together they constitute more than the sum of their parts. Even the simplest organism is more than the amalgamation of its components. A holistic and comprehensive meaning emerges which can be sensed, discovered and evaluated yet a verbal description approaches ineffability.
Modern science excels at control and subject-object distinction where Goethean science seeks for understanding, empathy and subject-object unity. Some Goethean scientists would argue that this ‘wrong’ relationship with nature is responsible for our current ecological crisis and if the Goethean approach, which involves ethical cultivation, became dominant it would greatly transform our relationship with nature in a positive way. The current environmental crisis is a crisis of relationship, a deep separation between humanity and nature with the result that nature is abused and natural resources are extracted to fulfill our human desires.
Goethe developed an alternate approach to science which is both holistic, qualitative and effective at creating harmonious relations between science and religion. If the word “God” replaced the word “nature” in many of Goethe’s writings, it is easy to see how many religions would concur with his approach and his reasoning. Goethe would be sympathetic to monism, the metaphysical and theological view that there is one underlying substance to reality and that there are no fundamental divisions in nature. The crown jewel of the Goethean approach to the participatory form of knowledge, is that faith in God, in a divine essence is no longer required. One knows the divine essence is real. The observer fully realizes the truth through actual experience as the divine essence speaks for itself through perception, intuition and active imagination. Thus not only did Goethe present an alternative method to conventional science, Goethean philosophy develops a more satisfying understanding between humans and nature while revitalizing the framework that harmonizes science and religion.
Works Cited
[i] Craig Holdrege , “The Giraffe’s Long Neck “, Ghent, NY: The Nature Institute, 2005. p.4
[ii] Ibid., p.5.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.