Goethe's World View
GA 6
Part V: Goethe and Hegel
[ 1 ] Goethe's contemplation of the world goes only to a certain limit. He observes light and color phenomena and advances as far as the archetypal phenomenon (Urphaenomen); he tries to find his bearings within the manifoldness of the plant's being and arrives at his sensible-supersensible archetypal plant. From the archetypal phenomenon or the archetypal plant he does not ascend to higher principles of explanation. He leaves that up to the philosophers. He is content when “he finds himself upon the empirical heights, from which he can look back upon experience in all its levels, and can at least look forward into the realm of theory if not enter it.” Goethe goes to the point in his contemplation of the real where the ideas confront him. To determine the connection in which ideas stand to one another and how, within the ideal realm, one thing proceeds from another, are tasks which first begin upon the empirical height where Goethe stopped. “The idea is eternal and unique,” he believes. “That we also use the plural is not appropriate. Everything of which we can become aware and about which we can speak are only manifestations of the idea.” But since the idea, in the phenomenon, arises after all as a multiplicity of individual ideas, such as idea of the plant, idea of the animal, these must then let themselves be led back to a basic form in the same way that the plant lets itself be led back to the leaf. The individual ideas are also different only in their manifestation; in their true being they are identical. It is therefore just as much in keeping with the Goethean world view to speak of a metamorphosis of ideas as of a metamorphosis of plants. The philosopher who tried to present this metamorphosis of ideas is Hegel. Through this he is the philosopher of the Goethean world view. He takes his start from the simplest idea, from pure “being.”
[ 2 ] Within this being the true shape of world phenomena conceals itself completely. Then rich content becomes a bloodless abstraction. Hegel has been reproached for deriving the whole content-filled world of ideas from pure being. But pure being contains “as idea” the entire world of ideas, just as the leaf contains as idea the entire plant. Hegel follows the metamorphoses of the idea from pure abstract being up to the level at which the idea becomes directly real phenomenon. He considers the phenomenon of philosophy to be this highest level. For, in philosophy, the ideas which are at work in the world are beheld in their own inherent shape. To express this in Goethe's way one could say that philosophy is the idea in its greatest expansion; pure being is the idea in its uttermost contraction. The fact that Hegel sees in philosophy the most complete metamorphosis of the idea shows that true attentiveness to himself is as far removed from him as from Goethe. A thing has attained its highest metamorphosis when it brings forth its full content in perception, in immediate life. But philosophy contains the world's content of ideas not in the form of life but rather in the form of thoughts. The living idea, the idea as perception, is given only to human self-observation. Hegel's philosophy is not a world view of freedom, because it does not seek the world content in its highest form upon the ground of the human personality. On this ground all content becomes entirely individual. Hegel does not seek this individual but rather the general, the genus. For this reason he also does not place the origin of the moral into the human individual but rather into the world order lying outside man which is supposed to contain the moral ideas. The human being does not give himself his own moral goal but rather has to make himself a pan of the moral world order. The single, the individual is for Hegel precisely the bad, if it persists in its singleness. Only within the whole does it first receive its value. This is the attitude of the bourgeoisie, Max Stirner asserts, “and its poet, Goethe, like its philosopher, Hegel, knew how to glorify the dependency of the subject upon the object, obedience to the objective world, and so on.” There again another one-sided way of picturing things is presented. Hegel, like Goethe, lacks the perception (Anschauung) of freedom, because the perception of the innermost being of the thought world escapes them both. Hegel definitely feels himself to be the philosopher of the Goethean world view. On February 20, 1821 he writes to Goethe, “The simple and abstract, what you quite aptly call the archetypal phenomenon, this you put first, and then show the concrete phenomena as arising through the participation of still other influences and circumstances, and you direct the whole process in such a way that the sequence proceeds from the simple determining factors to the composite ones, and, thus arranged, something complex appears in all its clarity through this decomposition. To seek out the archetypal phenomenon, to free it from other extraneous chance surroundings—to grasp it abstractly, as we call it—this I consider to be a task for a great spiritual sense for nature, just as I consider that procedure altogether to be what is truly scientific in gaining knowledge in this field.” “... But may I now also still speak to you about the particular interest which the archetypal phenomenon, lifted out in this way, has for us philosophers, namely that we can put such a preparation precisely to philosophical use!—If, namely, in spite of everything, we have finally led our initially oyster-like, gray, or completely black absolute out toward the air and light, so that it desires them, then we need windows in order to lead it out fully into the light of day; our schemata would disperse into mist if we were to transfer them directly into the colorful confused society of a resistant world. Here is where your archetypal phenomena now stand us in excellent stead; in this twilight, spiritual and comprehensible through its simplicity, visible or graspable through its sense-perceptibility—the two worlds greet each other: our abstruse existence and the manifest one.”
[ 3 ] Even though Goethe's world view and Hegel's philosophy correspond completely to each other, still a person would be quite mistaken if he were to place the same value upon the thought achievements of Goethe and those of Hegel. The same way of picturing things lives in both. Both want to avoid self-perception. But Goethe carried out his reflections in areas in which this lack of perception does not have a harmful effect. Even if he never did see the world of ideas as perception, he did nevertheless live in the world of ideas and allowed his observations to be permeated by it. Hegel viewed the world of ideas as perception, as individual spiritual existence, just as little as Goethe did. But he carried out his reflections precisely on the world of ideas. In many directions his reflections are therefore awry and untrue. If Hegel had carried out observations about nature, then they would have become every bit as valuable as those of Goethe; if Goethe had wanted to set up a philosophical thought structure, then that sure view of true reality would certainly have forsaken him which guided him in his considerations of nature.
Goethe and Hegel
[ 1 ] Goethes Weltbetrachtung geht nur bis zu einer gewissen Grenze. Er beobachtet die Licht- und Farbenerscheinungen und dringt bis zum Urphänomen vor; er sucht sich innerhalb der Mannigfaltigkeit des Pflanzenwesens zurechtzufinden und gelangt zu seiner sinnlich-übersinnlichen Urpflanze. Von dem Urphänomen oder der Urpflanze steigt er nicht zu höheren Erklärungsprinzipien auf. Das überläßt er den Philosophen. Er ist befriedigt, wenn «er sich auf der empirischen Höhe befindet, wo er rückwärts die Erfahrung in allen ihren Stufen überschauen, und vorwärts in das Reich der Theorie, wo nicht eintreten, doch einblicken kann». Goethe geht in der Betrachtung des Wirklichen so weit, bis ihm die Ideen entgegenblicken. In welchem Zusammenhange die Ideen untereinander stehen; wie innerhalb des Ideellen das eine aus dem andern hervorgeht; das sind Aufgaben, die auf der empirischen Höhe erst beginnen, auf der Goethe stehen bleibt. «Die Idee ist ewig und einzig», meint er, « daß wir auch den Plural brauchen, ist nicht wohlgetan. Alles, was wir gewahr werden und wovon wir reden können, sind nur Manifestationen der Idee.» Da aber doch in der Erscheinung die Idee als eine Vielheit von Einzelideen auftritt, z. B. Idee der Pflanze, Idee des Tieres, so müssen diese sich auf eine Grundform zurückführen lassen, wie die Pflanze sich auf das Blatt zurückführen läßt. Auch die einzelnen Ideen sind nur in ihrer Erscheinung verschieden; in ihrem wahren Wesen sind sie identisch. Es ist also ebenso im Sinne der Goetheschen Weltanschauung, von einer Metamorphose der Ideen wie von einer Metamorphose der Pflanzen zu reden. Der Philosoph, der diese Metamorphose der Ideen darzustellen versucht hat, ist Hegel. Er ist dadurch der Philosoph der Goetheschen Weltanschauung. Von der einfachsten Idee, dem reinen «Sein» geht er aus. In diesem verbirgt sich die wahrhafte Gestalt der Welterscheinungen vollständig. Deren reicher Inhalt wird zum blutarmen Abstraktum. Man hat Hegel vorgeworfen, daß er aus dem reinen «Sein» die ganze inhaltvolle Welt der Ideen ableitet. Aber das reine Sein enthält «der Idee nach» die ganze Ideenwelt, wie das Blatt der Idee nach die ganze Pflanze enthält. Hegel verfolgt die Metamorphosen der Idee von dem reinen abstrakten Sein bis zu der Stufe, in der die Idee unmittelbar wirkliche Erscheinung wird. Er betrachtet als diese höchste Stufe die Erscheinung der Philosophie selbst. Denn in der Philosophie werden die in der Welt wirksamen Ideen in ihrer ureigenen Gestalt angeschaut. In Goethes Weise gesprochen könnte man etwa sagen: die Philosophie ist die Idee in ihrer größten Ausbreitung; das reine Sein ist die Idee in ihrer äußersten Zusammenziehung. Daß Hegel in der Philosophie die vollkommenste Metamorphose der Idee sieht, beweist, daß ihm die wahre Selbstbeachtung ebenso ferne liegt wie Goethe. Ein Ding hat seine höchste Metamorphose erreicht, wenn es in der Wahrnehmung, im unmittelbaren Leben seinen vollen Inhalt herausarbeitet. Die Philosophie aber enthält den Ideengehalt der Welt nicht in Form des Lebens, sondern in Form von Gedanken. Die lebendige Idee, die Idee als Wahrnehmung, ist allein der menschlichen Selbstbeobachtung gegeben. Hegels Philosophie ist keine Weltanschauung der Freiheit, weil sie den Weltinhalt in seiner höchsten Form nicht auf dem Grunde der menschlichen Persönlichkeit sucht. Auf diesem Grunde wird aller Inhalt ganz individuell. Nicht dieses Individuelle sucht Hegel, sondern das Allgemeine, die Gattung. Er verlegt den Ursprung des Sittlichen daher auch nicht in das menschliche Individuum, sondern in die außer dem Menschen liegende Weltordnung, welche die sittlichen Ideen enthalten soll. Der Mensch gibt sich nicht selbst sein sittliches Ziel, sondern er hat sich der sittlichen Weltordnung einzugliedern. Das Einzelne, Individuelle gilt Hegel geradezu als das Schlechte, wenn es in seiner Einzelheit verharrt. Erst innerhalb des Ganzen erhält es seinen Wert. Dies ist die Gesinnung der Bourgeoisie, meint Max Stirner «und ihr Dichter Goethe, wie ihr Philosoph Hegel haben die Abhängigkeit des Subjekts vom Objekte, den Gehorsam gegen die objektive Welt usw. zu verherrlichen gewußt». Damit ist wieder eine andere einseitige Vorstellungsart hingestellt. Hegel wie Goethe fehlt die Anschauung der Freiheit, weil beiden die Anschauung des innersten Wesens der Gedankenwelt abgeht. Hegel fühlt sich durchaus als Philosoph der Goetheschen Weltanschauung. Er schreibt am 20. Februar 1821 an Goethe: «Das Einfache und Abstrakte, was Sie sehr treffend das Urphänomen nennen, stellen Sie an die Spitze, zeigen dann die konkreteren Erscheinungen auf als entstehend durch das Hinzukommen weiterer Einwirkungsweisen und Umstände und regieren den ganzen Verlauf so, daß die Reihenfolge von den einfachen Bedingungen zu den zusammengesetztem fortschreitet und so rangiert, das Verwickelte nun durch diese Dekomposition in seiner Klarheit erscheint. Das Urphänomen auszuspüren, es von den andern, ihm selbst zufälligen Umgebungen zu befreien, - es abstrakt, wie wir dies heißen, aufzufassen, dies halte ich für eine Sache des großen geistigen Natursinns, sowie jenen Gang überhaupt für das wahrhaft Wissenschaftliche der Erkenntnis in diesem Felde.» «Darf ich Ew. usw. aber nun auch noch von dem besondern Interesse sprechen, welches ein so herausgehobenes Urphänomen für uns Philosophen hat, daß wir nämlich ein solches Präparat geradezu in den philosophischen Nutzen verwenden können! - Haben wir nämlich endlich unser zunächst austernhaftes, graues oder ganz schwarzes ... Absolutes doch gegen Luft und Licht hingearbeitet, daß es desselben begehrlich geworden, so brauchen wir Fensterstellen, um es vollends an das Licht des Tages herauszuführen; unsere Schemen würden zu Dunst verschweben, wenn wir sie so geradezu in die bunte verworrene Gesellschaft der widerhältigen Welt versetzen wollten. Hier kommen uns nun Ew. usw. Urphänomene vortrefflich zustatten; in diesem Zwielichte, geistig und begreiflich durch seine Einfachheit, sichtlich oder greiflich durch seine Sinnlichkeit - begrüßen sich die beiden Welten, unser Abstruses und das erscheinende Dasein, einander.»
[ 2 ] Wenn auch Goethes Weltanschauung und Hegels Philosophie einander vollkommen entsprechen, so würde man sich doch sehr irren, wenn man den Gedanken-Leistungen Goethes und denen Hegels den gleichen Wert zuerkennen wollte. In beiden lebt dieselbe Vorstellungsweise. Beide wollen die Selbstwahrnehmung vermeiden. Doch hat Goethe seine Reflexionen auf Gebieten angestellt, in denen der Mangel der Wahrnehmung nicht schädlich wirkt. Hat er auch nie die Ideenwelt als Wahrnehmung gesehen; er hat doch in der Ideenwelt gelebt und seine Beobachtungen von ihr durchdringen lassen. Hegel hat die Ideenwelt ebensowenig wie Goethe als Wahrnehmung, als individuelles Geist-Dasein geschaut. Er hat aber gerade über die Ideenwelt seine Reflexionen angestellt. Diese sind daher nach vielen Richtungen hin schief und unwahr. Hätte Hegel Beobachtungen über die Natur angestellt, so wären sie wohl ebenso wertvoll geworden wie diejenigen Goethes; hätte Goethe ein philosophisches Gedankengebäude aufstellen wollen, so hätte ihn wohl die sichere Anschauung der wahren Wirklichkeit verlassen, die ihn bei seinen Naturbetrachtungen geleitet hat.
Goethe and Hegel
[ 1 ] Goethe's view of the world only goes as far as a certain limit. He observes the phenomena of light and color and penetrates to the primordial phenomenon; he seeks to find his way within the diversity of the plant being and arrives at its sensual, supersensible primordial plant. He does not ascend from the primordial phenomenon or the primordial plant to higher principles of explanation. He leaves that to the philosophers. He is satisfied when "he finds himself on the empirical level, where he can look backwards over experience in all its stages, and forward into the realm of theory, if he cannot enter it, he can at least look into it. Goethe goes so far in his contemplation of the real that he can see the ideas. How the ideas are related to one another; how one emerges from the other within the ideal; these are tasks that only begin at the empirical level at which Goethe remains. "The idea is eternal and unique," he says, "that we also need the plural is not well done. Everything that we become aware of and of which we can speak are only manifestations of the idea." Since, however, the idea appears in manifestation as a multiplicity of individual ideas, e.g. the idea of the plant, the idea of the animal, these must be reducible to a basic form, just as the plant can be traced back to the leaf. The individual ideas are also only different in their appearance; in their true essence they are identical. It is therefore just as much in the spirit of Goethe's world view to speak of a metamorphosis of ideas as of a metamorphosis of plants. The philosopher who has attempted to describe this metamorphosis of ideas is Hegel. He is thus the philosopher of Goethe's world view. He starts from the simplest idea, pure "being". In this the true form of world phenomena is completely concealed. Their rich content becomes an anemic abstraction. Hegel has been reproached for deriving the whole world of ideas from pure "being". But pure being contains the whole world of ideas "according to the idea", just as the leaf contains the whole plant according to the idea. Hegel traces the metamorphoses of the idea from pure abstract being to the stage at which the idea becomes a directly real phenomenon. He considers this highest stage to be the appearance of philosophy itself. For in philosophy, the ideas that are effective in the world are seen in their very own form. In Goethe's terms, one could say: philosophy is the idea in its greatest expansion; pure being is the idea in its outermost contraction. The fact that Hegel sees in philosophy the most perfect metamorphosis of the idea proves that true self-regard is as far removed from him as it is from Goethe. A thing has reached its highest metamorphosis when it works out its full content in perception, in immediate life. Philosophy, however, contains the idea content of the world not in the form of life, but in the form of thought. The living idea, the idea as perception, is given solely to human self-observation. Hegel's philosophy is not a world view of freedom, because it does not seek the content of the world in its highest form on the ground of the human personality. On this ground all content becomes entirely individual. It is not this individual that Hegel seeks, but the general, the genus. He therefore does not place the origin of the moral in the human individual, but in the world order lying outside the human being, which is supposed to contain the moral ideas. Man does not give himself his moral goal, but has to integrate himself into the moral world order. For Hegel, the individual is considered to be the bad thing if it remains in its individuality. It only acquires its value within the whole. This is the attitude of the bourgeoisie, says Max Stirner, "and its poet Goethe, like its philosopher Hegel, knew how to glorify the dependence of the subject on the object, obedience to the objective world, etc.". This is again another one-sided mode of conception. Hegel, like Goethe, lacks the conception of freedom, because both lack the conception of the innermost essence of the world of thought. Hegel certainly feels himself to be a philosopher of Goethe's world view. He wrote to Goethe on February 20, 1821: "You place the simple and abstract, which you very aptly call the primal phenomenon, at the top, then point out the more concrete phenomena as arising through the addition of further modes of action and circumstances and govern the whole course in such a way that the sequence progresses from the simple conditions to the composite ones and ranks them in such a way that the complex now appears in its clarity through this decomposition. To trace out the original phenomenon, to free it from the other surroundings which are accidental to it, - to comprehend it abstractly, as we call it, this I regard as a matter of the great spiritual sense of nature, as well as that course in general as the truly scientific aspect of knowledge in this field." "But may I now also speak to you of the special interest that such an outstanding primordial phenomenon has for us philosophers, namely that we can use such a preparation for philosophical purposes! - For once we have finally exposed our initially oyster-like, gray or completely black ... ... absolute against air and light, so that it has become desirous of it, we need windows in order to bring it fully out into the light of day; our schemas would fade into a haze if we wanted to place them in the colorful, confused company of the disgusting world. Here now come to us Ew. etc. In this twilight, spiritual and comprehensible through its simplicity, visible or tangible through its sensuality - the two worlds, our abstruse and the appearing existence, greet each other."
[ 2 ] Although Goethe's worldview and Hegel's philosophy correspond perfectly, one would be very much mistaken if one were to attribute the same value to Goethe's and Hegel's intellectual achievements. The same mode of conception lives in both. Both want to avoid self-perception. Yet Goethe conducted his reflections in areas in which the lack of perception does not have a harmful effect. Even if he never saw the world of ideas as perception, he lived in the world of ideas and allowed it to permeate his observations. Like Goethe, Hegel did not see the world of ideas as perception, as individual spirit existence. But it was precisely on the world of ideas that he made his reflections. These are therefore skewed and untrue in many directions. If Hegel had made observations about nature, they would probably have been just as valuable as Goethe's; if Goethe had wanted to set up a philosophical edifice of thought, he would probably have lost the sure view of true reality that guided him in his observations of nature.