Goethe's World View
GA 6
Introduction
[ 1 ] If one wants to understand Goethe's world view, one cannot content oneself with listening to what he himself says about it in individual statements. To express the core of his being in crystal-clear, sharply stamped sentences did not lie in his nature. Such sentences seemed to him rather to distort reality than to portray it rightly. He had a certain aversion to holding fast, in a transparent thought, what is alive, reality. His inner life, his relationship to the outer world, his observations about things and events were too rich, too filled with delicate components, with intimate elements, to be brought by him himself into simple formulas. He expresses himself when this or that experience moves him to do so. But he always says too much or too little. His lively involvement with everything that comes his way causes him often to use sharper expressions than his total nature demands. It misleads him just as often into expressing himself indistinctly where his nature could force him into a definite opinion. He is always uneasy when it is a matter of deciding between two views. He does not want to rob himself of an open mind by giving his thoughts an incisive direction. He reassures himself with the thought that “the human being is not born to solve the problems of the world but is, indeed, born to seek where the problem begins, and then to keep himself within the limits of what is comprehensible” A problem which the person believes he has solved takes away from him the possibility of seeing clearly a thousand things that fall into the domain of this problem. He is no longer attentive to them, because he believes himself to be enlightened about the region into which they fall. Goethe would rather have two opposing opinions about an issue than one definite one. For each thing seems to him to comprise an infinitude, which one must approach from different sides in order to perceive something of its entire fullness. “It is said that the truth lies midway between two opposing opinions. Not at all! It is the problem that lies between, the unseeable, the eternally active life, thought of as at rest.” Goethe wants to keep his thoughts alive so that he could transform them at any moment, if reality should induce him to do so. He does not want to be right; he wants always “to be going after what is right.” At two different points in time he expresses himself differently about the same thing. A rigid theory, which wants once and for all to bring to expression the lawfulness of a series of phenomena, is suspect to him, because such a theory takes away from our power of knowledge its unbiased relationship to a mobile reality.
[ 2 ] If in spite of this one wants to have an overview of the unity of his perceptions, then one must listen less to his words and look more to the way he leads his life. One must be attentive to his relationship to things when he investigates their nature and in doing so add what he himself does not say. One must enter into the most inward part of his personality, which for the most part conceals itself behind what he expresses. What he says may often contradict itself; what he lives belongs always to one self-sustaining whole. He has also not sketched his world view in a unified system; he has lived his world view in a unified personality. When we look at his life, then all the contradictions in what he says resolve themselves. They are present in his thinking about the world only in the same sense as in the world itself. He has said this and that about nature. He has never set down his view of nature in a solidly built thought-structure. But when we look over his individual thoughts in this area they of themselves join together into a whole. One can make a mental picture for oneself of what thought-structure would have arisen if he had presented his views completely and in relationship to each other. I have set myself the task of portraying in this book how Goethe's personality must have been constituted in its inner-most being in order for him to be able to express thoughts about the phenomena of nature like the ones he set down in his natural scientific works. I know that, with respect to much of what I will say, Goethean statements can be brought which contradict it. My concern in this book, however, is not to give a history of the evolution of his sayings but rather to present the foundations of his personality which led him to his deep insights into the creating and working of nature. It is not from the numerous statements in which he leans upon other ways of thinking in order to make himself understood, nor in which he makes use of formulations which one or another philosopher had used that these foundations can be known. From what he said to Eckermann one could construct a Goethe for oneself who could never have written The Metamorphosis of the Plants. Goethe has addressed many a word to Zelter that could mislead someone to infer a scientific attitude which contradicts his great thoughts about how the animals are formed. I admit that in Goethe's personality forces were at work that I have not considered. But these forces recede before the actually determining ones which give his world view its stamp. To characterize these determining forces as sharply as I possibly can is the task I have set myself. In reading this book one must therefore heed the fact that I nowhere had any intention of allowing parts of any world view of my own to glimmer through my presentation of the Goethean way of picturing things. I believe that in a book of this kind one has no right to put forward one's own world view in terms of content, but rather that one has the duty to use what one's own world view gives one for understanding what is portrayed. I wanted, for example, to portray Goethe's relationship to the development of Western thought in the way that this relationship presents itself from the point of view of the Goethean world view. For the consideration of the world views of individual personalities, this way seems to me to be the only one which guarantees historical objectivity. Another way has to be entered upon only when such a world view is considered in relationship to other ones.
Einleitung
[ 1 ] Will man Goethes Weltanschauung verstehen, so darf man sich nicht damit begnügen, hinzuhorchen, was er selbst in einzelnen Aussprüchen über sie sagt. In kristallklaren, scharf geprägten Sätzen den Kern seines Wesens auszusprechen, lag nicht in seiner Natur. Solche Sätze schienen ihm die Wirklichkeit eher zu verzerren als richtig abzubilden. Er hatte eine gewisse Scheu davor, das Lebendige, die Wirklichkeit in einem durchsichtigen Gedanken festzuhalten. Sein Innenleben, seine Beziehung zur Außenwelt, seine Beobachtungen über die Dinge und Ereignisse waren zu reich, zu erfüllt von zarten Bestandteilen, von intimen Elementen, um von ihm selbst in einfache Formeln gebracht zu werden. Er spricht sich aus, wenn ihn dieses oder jenes Erlebnis dazu drängt. Aber er sagt immer zu viel oder zu wenig. Die lebhafte Anteilnahme an allem, was an ihn herankommt, bestimmt ihn oft, schärfere Ausdrücke zu gebrauchen, als es seine Gesamtnatur verlangt. Sie verführt ihn ebenso oft, sich unbestimmt zu äußern, wo ihn sein Wesen zu einer bestimmten Meinung nötigen könnte. Er ist immer ängstlich, wenn es sich darum handelt, zwischen zwei Ansichten zu entscheiden. Er will sich die Unbefangenheit nicht dadurch rauben, daß er seinen Gedanken eine scharfe Richtung gibt. Er beruhigt sich bei dem Gedanken: «Der Mensch ist nicht geboren, die Probleme der Welt zu lösen, wohl aber zu suchen, wo das Problem angeht, und sich sodann in der Grenze des Begreiflichen zu halten. »Ein Problem, das der Mensch gelöst zu haben glaubt, entzieht ihm die Möglichkeit, tausend Dinge klar zu sehen, die in den Bereich dieses Problems fallen. Er achtet auf sie nicht mehr, weil er über das Gebiet aufgeklärt zu sein glaubt, in das sie fallen. Goethe möchte lieber zwei Meinungen über eine Sache haben, die einander entgegengesetzt sind, als eine bestimmte. Denn jedes Ding scheint ihm eine Unendlichkeit einzuschließen, der man sich von verschiedenen Seiten nähern muß, um von ihrer ganzen Fülle etwas wahrzunehmen. «Man sagt, zwischen zwei entgegengesetzten Meinungen liegt die Wahrheit mitten inne. Keineswegs! Das Problem liegt dazwischen, das Unschaubare, das ewig tätige Leben, in Ruhe gedacht.» Goethe will seine Gedanken lebendig erhalten, damit er in jedem Augenblicke sie umwandeln könne, wenn die Wirklichkeit ihn dazu veranlaßt. Er will nicht recht haben; er will stets nur aufs «Rechte losgehen». In zwei verschiedenen Zeitpunkten spricht er sich über dieselbe Sache verschieden aus. Eine feste Theorie, die ein für allemal die Gesetzmäßigkeit einer Reihe von Erscheinungen zum Ausdruck bringen will, ist ihm bedenklich, weil eine solche der Erkenntniskraft das unbefangene Verhältnis zur beweglichen Wirklichkeit raubt.
[ 2 ] Wenn man dennoch die Einheit seiner Anschauungen überschauen will, so muß man weniger auf seine Worte hören, als auf seine Lebensführung sehen. Man muß sein Verhältnis zu den Dingen belauschen, wenn er ihrem Wesen nachforscht und dabei das ergänzen, was er selbst nicht sagt. Man muß auf das Innerste seiner Persönlichkeit eingehen, das sich zum größten Teile hinter seinen Äußerungen verbirgt. Was er sagt, mag sich oft widersprechen; was er lebt, gehört immer einem sich selber tragenden Ganzen an. Hat er seine Weltanschauung auch nicht in einem geschlossenen System aufgezeichnet; er hat sie in einer geschlossenen Persönlichkeit dargelebt. Wenn wir auf sein Leben sehen, so lösen sich alle Widersprüche in seinem Reden. Sie sind in seinem Denken über die Welt nur in dem Sinne vorhanden wie in der Welt selbst. Er hat über die Natur dies und jenes gesagt. In einem festgefügten Gedankengebäude hat er seine Naturanschauung niemals niedergelegt. Aber wenn wir seine einzelnen Gedanken auf diesem Gebiete überblicken, so schließen sie sich von selbst zu einem Ganzen zusammen. Man kann sich eine Vorstellung davon machen, welches Gedankengebäude entstanden wäre, wenn er seine Ansichten im Zusammenhang vollständig dargestellt hätte. Ich habe mir vorgesetzt, in dieser Schrift zu schildern, wie Goethes Persönlichkeit in ihrem innersten Wesen geartet gewesen sein muß, um über die Erscheinungen der Natur solche Gedanken äußern zu können, wie er sie in seinen naturwissenschaftlichen Arbeiten niedergelegt hat. Daß manchem von dem, was ich sagen werde, Goethesche Sätze entgegengehalten werden können, die ihm widersprechen, weiß ich. Es handelt sich mir aber in dieser Schrift nicht darum, eine Entwicklungsgeschichte seiner Aussprüche zu geben, sondern darum, die Grundlagen seiner Persönlichkeit darzustellen, die ihn zu seinen tiefen Einsichten in das Schaffen und Wirken der Natur führten. Nicht aus den zahlreichen Sätzen, in denen er an andere Denkweisen sich anlehnt, um dadurch verständlich zu werden; oder in denen er sich der Formeln bedient, welche der eine oder der andere Philosoph gebraucht hat, lassen sich diese Grundlagen erkennen. Aus den Äußerungen zu Eckermann könnte man sich einen Goethe konstruieren, der nie die Metamorphose der Pflanzen hätte schreiben können. An Zelter hatte Goethe manches Wort gerichtet, das verführen könnte, auf eine wissenschaftliche Gesinnung zu schließen, die seinen großen Gedanken über die Bildung der Tiere widerspricht. Ich gebe zu, daß in Goethes Persönlichkeit auch Kräfte gewirkt haben, die ich nicht berücksichtigt habe. Aber diese Kräfte treten zurück hinter den eigentlich bestimmenden, die seiner Weltanschauung das Gepräge geben. Diese bestimmenden Kräfte so scharf zu charakterisieren, als mir möglich ist, habe ich mir zur Aufgabe gestellt. Man wird beim Lesen dieses Buches deshalb beachten müssen, daß ich nirgends die Absicht gehabt habe, etwa Bestandteile einer eigenen Weltanschauung durch die Darstellung der Goetheschen Vorstellungsart hindurchschimmern zu lassen. Ich glaube, daß man bei einem Buche dieser Art kein Recht hat, die eigene Weltanschauung inhaltlich zu vertreten, sondern daß man die Pflicht hat, dasjenige, was einem die eigene Weltanschauung gibt, zum Verstehen der geschilderten zu verwenden. Ich habe z. B. Goethes Verhältnis zur abendländischen Gedankenentwickelung so schildern wollen, wie sich dieses Verhältnis vom Gesichtspunkte der Goetheschen Weltanschauung aus darstellt. Für die Betrachtung der Weltanschauungen einzelner Persönlichkeiten scheint mir diese Art einzig die historische Objektivität zu verbürgen. Eine andere Art hat erst einzutreten, wenn eine solche Weltanschauung im Zusammenhange mit anderen betrachtet wird.
Introduction
[ 1 ] If we want to understand Goethe's world view, we must not content ourselves with listening to what he himself says about it in individual statements. It was not in his nature to express the core of his being in crystal-clear, sharply defined sentences. Such sentences seemed to him to distort reality rather than accurately reflect it. He had a certain reluctance to capture the living, the reality in a transparent thought. His inner life, his relationship to the outside world, his observations of things and events were too rich, too full of delicate components, of intimate elements, to be put into simple formulas by himself. He speaks out when this or that experience urges him to do so. But he always says too much or too little. His vivid interest in everything that comes to him often determines him to use sharper expressions than his overall nature demands. It just as often tempts him to express himself indeterminately where his nature might compel him to express a definite opinion. He is always anxious when it comes to deciding between two opinions. He does not want to rob himself of his impartiality by giving his thoughts a sharp direction. He reassures himself with the thought: "Man is not born to solve the problems of the world, but to seek where the problem lies and then to keep within the bounds of the comprehensible. "A problem that man believes he has solved deprives him of the opportunity to see clearly a thousand things that fall within the scope of this problem. He no longer pays attention to them because he believes he is enlightened about the area in which they fall. Goethe would rather have two opinions about one thing that are opposed to each other than one certain one. For every thing seems to him to include an infinity that must be approached from different sides in order to perceive something of its fullness. "It is said that the truth lies between two opposing opinions. Not at all! The problem lies between them, the unseen, the eternally active life, thought in peace." Goethe wants to keep his thoughts alive so that he can transform them at any moment when reality prompts him to do so. He does not want to be right; he only ever wants to "go for the right". At two different times he speaks differently about the same thing. A fixed theory that seeks to express the lawfulness of a series of phenomena once and for all is questionable to him, because such a theory robs the power of cognition of its unbiased relationship to moving reality.
[ 2 ] If one nevertheless wishes to survey the unity of his views, one must listen less to his words than to his way of life. We must listen to his relationship to things when he investigates their essence and add to what he does not say himself. You have to look into the innermost part of his personality, which is largely hidden behind his statements. What he says may often contradict itself; what he lives always belongs to a self-sustaining whole. He did not record his world view in a closed system; he lived it in a closed personality. When we look at his life, all the contradictions in his words dissolve. They are present in his thinking about the world only in the same sense as in the world itself. He said this and that about nature. He never laid down his view of nature in a fixed body of thought. But if we take an overview of his individual thoughts in this area, they automatically come together to form a whole. One can imagine the body of thought that would have emerged if he had presented his views in their entirety. I have set myself the task of describing in this essay what Goethe's personality must have been like in its innermost essence in order to be able to express such thoughts about the phenomena of nature as he set down in his scientific works. I know that some of what I am going to say can be countered with Goethean statements that contradict him. However, my aim in this paper is not to give a history of the development of his sayings, but to present the foundations of his personality that led him to his profound insights into the workings of nature. These foundations cannot be recognized from the numerous sentences in which he borrows from other ways of thinking in order to make them comprehensible, or in which he uses formulas used by one philosopher or another. From the remarks on Eckermann, one could construct a Goethe who could never have written The Metamorphosis of Plants. Goethe addressed many a word to Zelter that might tempt us to conclude that he had a scientific attitude that contradicted his great thoughts on the formation of animals. I admit that there were forces at work in Goethe's personality that I have not taken into account. But these forces take a back seat to the actual determining forces that give his world view its character. I have set myself the task of characterizing these determining forces as sharply as I can. When reading this book, you will therefore have to bear in mind that nowhere have I intended to allow any elements of my own world view to shine through the portrayal of Goethe's way of thinking. I believe that in a book of this kind one has no right to represent one's own world view in terms of content, but that one has the duty to use what one's own world view gives one to understand the one described. For example, I have wanted to describe Goethe's relationship to the development of Western thought as this relationship appears from the point of view of Goethe's world view. For the consideration of the worldviews of individual personalities, this way seems to me to guarantee only historical objectivity. A different kind only comes into play when such a world view is considered in connection with others.