Goetheanism is a holistic , purely phenomenological, general scientific method based primarily on direct qualitative experiences , which, unlike conventional scientific methods, largely refrains from the use of artificial measuring devices and quantitative evaluations and is free of speculative elements, hypotheses and model concepts in its objective . Goethe’s research method is by no means exhausted in the mere registration and description of the phenomena, as is the case, for example, in thepositivism called for. They are supposed to reveal their ideal connection, their lawful connection, themselves through “ perceptive power of judgement ”, ie through a thinking that does not isolate itself from the phenomena, and thereby make their actual essence accessible to spiritual perception. Only then is the complete phenomenon given as it is in reality . In this sense, Goethe’s method can also be viewed as a compassionate empiricism that not only captures the outside, but above all the inner being.

The word Goetheanism was first used by the Swedish diplomat Karl Gustav von Brinckmann in a letter to Goethe in 1803 in order to characterize his overall world view. Rudolf Steiner , the first editor of Goethe’s scientific writings, including his estate ( Lit .: Goethe 1891-1896), increasingly used the term from 1915 for the method on which Goethe’s studies of nature were based, without restricting it solely to that. In fact, the Goethean method can be applied fruitfully in practically all areas of life.

Epistemological Foundations

Goethe himself gave no coherent epistemological justification for his research method. This was first formulated in detail and systematically by Rudolf Steiner in his introduction to Goethe’s scientific writings (1884 – 1897) and in his seminal work Basic Lines of an Epistemology of the Goethean World View . Fruitful ideas for understanding the Goetheanistic method can also be found in Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology , despite the predominantly philosophical and less scientific orientation .

Schiller characterized Goethe’s holistically oriented mindset in his famous letter of August 23, 1794 as follows:

Goethe’s research method

The phenomenological method

Goethe based his scientific investigations on a pure phenomenology and with this created the basis for Goetheanism. His phenomenological method is based on the systematic study of phenomena , i. H. of the phenomena as they present themselves to the sensuous intuition as something immediately given and in their objective, lawful connection lying in the phenomena themselves reveal themselves to the insightful , non-speculative thinking .

In Wilhelm Meister’s Wanderjahre, Goethe aphoristically characterizes the cornerstones of his scientific research method as follows:

The Emphasis on the Qualitative Element

The quantitative recording of the natural phenomenon is in the foreground in conventional natural science. “Measure what is measurable and make measurable what is not measurable” has been here since Galileothe supreme principle. Measuring instruments that make natural phenomena quantitatively comprehensible should replace direct sensory observation as far as possible. This is followed by a mathematical description of the regularities found experimentally. Mathematically formulated hypotheses are then set up to explain these regularities. Man as an observer is completely excluded from the formation of theories. One strives for a purely objective description of nature in which the observing subject has no place. Nature is complete without man and the laws of nature would be the same even if there were no man. This method has proven particularly effective in mechanical phenomena and the knowledge gained here was then transferred to all other natural phenomena. In this way, a purely mechanistic, causal formulation of the laws of nature first emerged. The principle of causality was only shaken at the beginning of the 20th century by the quantum theory founded by Max Planck.

In contrast, Goethe strove for a systematic, pure phenomenology of phenomena that could be experienced with the senses . He does not ask about causes , but about the conditions under which the phenomena appear. Goethe is not looking for a hidden being behind the phenomena, but, as he thinks, this is revealed through the phenomena themselves:

Rudolf Steiner characterizes the starting point of Goethe’s research method as follows:

The qualitative element is in the foreground with Goethe. The sensory qualities themselves, which in the conventional scientific method are completely excluded from the formation of scientific theories as ostensibly purely subjective phenomena, are now the focus of Goethe’s scientific observation. There is no need for a purely intellectually formulated speculative theory derived from the observed phenomena.

About the reality of sense qualities

Unfortunately, since John Locke one has been divided between primary and secondary sensory qualitiesdistinguished. Colors, for example, are only secondary subjective phenomena that are triggered by the primary objective movement processes in nature. It has been argued again and again that while we can easily come to general agreement about the size and shape of physical objects, we can never know if another person will experience colors the same way we do. But this argument is fundamentally wrong. It is based on a confusion of the perceptual factor given by the senses with the intellectually recognized regularity. With regard to the shape and size of the objects, the underlying geometric laws jump out at us so quickly that we don’t even notice that we are already dealing with a mental penetration of perception. In fact, we very quickly come to general agreement on these conceptualized geometric facts. In the case of color phenomena, the laws associated with them do not come to us so directlyconsciousness . With his color theory, Goethe wanted to make people aware of these laws, which are no less objective than the geometric ones. Light and dark, red and green, violet and blue etc. can be distinguished just as reliably as triangles, squares and circles. And just as there are people who are completely or partially color blind, there are also people who are blind to certain principles of form due to neurological defects.

The law of specific sensory energies formulated by Johannes Peter Müller in 1826 was often used for the mere subjectivity of color impressionsled to the meeting. The eye always only produces light and color phenomena, regardless of whether it is excited by impact, pressure, electrical stimulation or even by external light. The color qualities therefore have nothing to do directly with the external stimulus, but are only appearances within the eye. In truth, however, the law of specific sense energies only confirms what has already been said here. In principle, every sensory organ is only able to show the perceptual qualities corresponding to its nature, which it is also able to produce itself. It translates all stimuli into its appropriate language. If the eye is excited by pressure, impact or electrical impulses, only very unspecific color impressions are created, which say little about the outside world – just that there was an impact, Pressure or electrical impulse was present as a general external stimulus. It only unfolds its full potential when confronted with the light through which and for which it was created. But this principle applies no less to the sense of self-movement through which we perceive forms.

The scientific rigor of the method

The quantitative assessment of nature seemed secondary to Goethe, but he very emphatically demanded a level-headed, almost mathematical rigor and consistency for his research method. In his color theory, for example, Goethe proceeds so carefully step by step that the laws of the world of colors are revealed in such a way that, as he says himself, he could give the strictest geometer complete accounts:

Goetheanism as the basis of a natural science free of hypotheses

Goethe achieved no less than providing the basis for a natural science that was ultimately completely free of hypotheses. Sure, along the way, working hypotheses that can direct our attention to other phenomena are necessary and helpful, but ultimately the phenomena themselves, in their unbroken context, provide the whole lesson. We no longer have merely a hypothetical knowledge that awaits revision through future theoretical approaches, but we stand by never moving away from perception, directly experiencing the truth inside.

The holistic character of Goethe’s research method

Goethe opposed all attempts at reductionism very energetically , which, however, became the dominant scientific method of knowledge after him. Goethe, on the other hand, was of the opinion that one can get to know the essence of nature comprehensively by studying even the phenomena of a certain single sense sphere thoroughly. Recourse to phenomena from another sensory area is neither necessary nor helpful. Goethe was convinced that through each of our senses the whole of nature is revealed, albeit in a special way – not in all its details, that is not what is meant, but in its essence . Goethe says about color:

For example, vibrations or movements of the smallest light particles do not belong to the field of vision and have no meaning for the explanation of color phenomena. Vibrations and movements belong in the area of ​​the sense of self-movement , maybe also in the region of the sense of touch or the sense of balance, but have absolutely nothing to do with our sense of light. There is no way from the movement to the color quality that we experienced. We are dealing here with completely different qualities of experience, which in principle cannot be traced back to one another. That in no way excludes the fact that motion processes can also be observed where we experience colors. However, they do not contribute to an understanding of the color phenomena experienced.

The knowledge gained in different sensory spheres cannot be derived from one another, i.e. colors cannot be explained by movement processes, but they can be related to one another and compared with one another. This can only be conducive to a comprehensive scientific study of nature – but only if each area is examined separately beforehandhas been comprehensively and thoroughly researched, because otherwise the temptation would be too great to replace missing elements in one area with elements from another, which, however, fundamentally contradicts the Goetheanist research approach! If, however, it is possible to relate the various sensory spheres to each other in a fruitful way, one will see all the more clearly how the essence of nature expresses itself fully and unbroken in a special way in each area and this essence of nature then becomes much more overall stand out more clearly. What Goethe accomplished in an exemplary manner with his color theory becomes a comprehensive Goetheanistic natural scienceexpanded. It is precisely because of this that we can dare to approach natural areas with scientific research for which we do not have a direct sensory organ. For chemical phenomena, for example, we have no such immediate sensory organ. Rudolf Steiner later spoke of the so-called chemical ether from his supersensible spiritual research , which is related to chemical phenomena in a similar way as the light ether is related to color phenomena. However, clairvoyant research is not required to delve into this side of nature. The chemical phenomena are also revealed through all the senses we have. They appear in characteristic colors, in crystal forms, smells, flavors, etc. By looking at all of these phenomena together in their lawful context, we finally get a clear picture of this part of the world that is initially not directly accessible to the senses. Goethe already did a lot about this in his work on chemical colors.

It is in the nature of Goethean observation of nature to look at phenomena in their natural context, from which they are all too easily torn out by a field of observation narrowed by artificial instruments. Thus, living things cannot be understood comprehensively if one only directs the microscopic view at cells and cell components, but only if one also directs one’s gaze into the cosmic expanses, as Goethe so aptly expressed it in his Faust poem :

Polarity and Increase

If we look at a wide luminous slit through a glass prism, we encounter the same contrasting color phenomena. Red-yellow color fringes appear at one edge of the slit and blue-violet fringes at the other. The color phenomena only appear at the edges, the white surface itself remains white as before.

Here a nature-based polarity of color phenomena is revealed. The blue-violet tones, which we perceive as rather cool and passive, contrast with the active, warm red-yellow colors. The concept of polarity is essential to Goethe’s method. Light and darkness, or rather light and dark, are the primal polarity we are dealing with here. By darkening the light or by brightening the dark, the first color appearances emerge, which are also polar opposites to each other.

Through the interaction of these described polar color phenomena, we can progress to new, more complex phenomena. In this way, the green only emerges, again in an immediately comprehensible way, through the mixtureof yellow and blue. But that brings us to the complete solar spectrum, which ranges from red, through orange, yellow and green to blue, indigo and violet. The full spectrum can be seen, for example, when looking at a very narrow, luminous slit through a glass prism. Then the yellow of one edge spectrum mixes with the blue of the other and lets the green appear in the middle. On the other hand, if you look at a narrow dark band through the prism, you get the inverted solar spectrum, with the new color peach blossom (pure purple) appearing in the middle, which does not occur at all in the normal solar spectrum.

The purple color can be increased by increasingachieved by the interaction of the red and the violet. Climbing is another concept that is fundamental to Goethe’s way of research. Enhancement is more than mere mixing. We thereby ascend to a higher, more spiritual realm of phenomena. For Goethe, nature and spirit are never irreconcilable opposites. What deeply inspired him in his natural research “… is the perception of the two great driving forces of all nature: the concept of polarity and increase, that of matter, insofar as we think of it materially, the latter, on the other hand, belonging to it insofar as we think of it spiritually; the former is in perpetual attraction and repulsion, the latter in ever-striving ascent. But because matter can never exist and be effective without spirit, and spirit can never exist without matter, matter can also increase, just as the mind insists on attracting and repelling; as he alone can think who has separated enough to connect, has connected enough to be able to separate again.” (Goethe: Explanation of the aphoristic essay “Nature” to the Chancellor of. Müller dated May 24, 1828 )

The attempt as a mediator of object and subject

The colors are no more merely subjective than the processes of movement are purely objective. Both exist only in relation to a certain sphere of perception. Reality always reveals itself only in the relationship of the subject to the object. The object concept, completely detached from the subject and thought of as existing independently, is something completely meaningless. The object, whether one perceives it as a spatially formed object, as a special scent, as a sound that sounds far away, or as a differentiated color phenomenon, is a phenomenon that only emerges for a being with very specific sensory organs. It simply has no existence of its own. This applies equally to all sensory areas, none of which is fundamentally superior to the others. Motion processes may be easier to quantify and better expressed in mathematical formulas; this may have been helpful for the consistent scientific description of the phenomena – but they are no more real than the color phenomena. It is little wonder that in a largely materialistic age the things that can be touched should be considered more real than anything else. But this only keeps you trapped in the most widespread prejudice of our time. In truth, every perceptual image, even the objective one, is partly determined by the nature of the perceiving being. It just makes absolutely no sense to say: This is what nature looks like! Every sight of nature – sight now taken as a synonym for all possible sensory experiences – is only given in relation to a very specific observer with very specific sensory organs. This by no means means that the sense organs falsify reality; that doesn’t mean that we, like that one can grasp with one’s hands, considers more real than anything else, is little surprising. But this only keeps you trapped in the most widespread prejudice of our time. In truth, every perceptual image, even the objective one, is partly determined by the nature of the perceiving being. It just makes absolutely no sense to say: This is what nature looks like! Every sight of nature – sight now taken as a synonym for all possible sensory experiences – is only given in relation to a very specific observer with very specific sensory organs. This by no means means that the sense organs falsify reality; that doesn’t mean that we, like that one can grasp with one’s hands, considers more real than anything else, is little surprising. But this only keeps you trapped in the most widespread prejudice of our time. In truth, every perceptual image, even the objective one, is partly determined by the nature of the perceiving being. It just makes absolutely no sense to say: This is what nature looks like! Every sight of nature – sight now taken as a synonym for all possible sensory experiences – is only given in relation to a very specific observer with very specific sensory organs. This by no means means that the sense organs falsify reality; that doesn’t mean that we, like But this only keeps you trapped in the most widespread prejudice of our time. In truth, every perceptual image, even the objective one, is partly determined by the nature of the perceiving being. It just makes absolutely no sense to say: This is what nature looks like! Every sight of nature – sight now taken as a synonym for all possible sensory experiences – is only given in relation to a very specific observer with very specific sensory organs. This by no means means that the sense organs falsify reality; that doesn’t mean that we, like But this only keeps you trapped in the most widespread prejudice of our time. In truth, every perceptual image, even the objective one, is partly determined by the nature of the perceiving being. It just makes absolutely no sense to say: This is what nature looks like! Every sight of nature – sight now taken as a synonym for all possible sensory experiences – is only given in relation to a very specific observer with very specific sensory organs. This by no means means that the sense organs falsify reality; that doesn’t mean that we, like Every sight of nature – sight now taken as a synonym for all possible sensory experiences – is only given in relation to a very specific observer with very specific sensory organs. This by no means means that the sense organs falsify reality; that doesn’t mean that we, like Every sight of nature – sight now taken as a synonym for all possible sensory experiences – is only given in relation to a very specific observer with very specific sensory organs. This by no means means that the sense organs falsify reality; that doesn’t mean that we, likeImmanuel Kant believed that the “thing in itself” must remain closed. There is simply no such thing as a thing in itself. The spatially experienced things are no more real or less real than the colors, and through both the whole of reality is revealed at the same time, but in each case in a special way. Reality, which, after what has just been said, can by no means be thought of as objectively material, stands beyond the opposition of subject and object. We must strictly distinguish between reality and appearance. All perception is necessarily only appearance, not reality itself, but just as necessarily appearance at the same time, through which reality reveals itself unreservedly in its essence in a specific way.

Other beings may have more or fewer and very different sensory organs than we do. Accordingly, they become richer or poorer in the world, but in any case in a completely different way than we experience. But no matter what the nature of their organs of perception, nature as a whole is always revealed through them, and at the same time the perceptual image is always dependent on their own nature, on the nature of the observing being. Perceptual images are always subjective and objective at the same time and none is preferred over the other in terms of its reality content. Through each of them we can fully recognize the essence of nature, so one cannot speak of basic limits of knowledge in this regard. Of course, that doesn’t mean that we learn all the details of what’s happening in nature,

So we can only penetrate to reality if we consciously and prudently seek the connection between subject and object. Goethe discussed the relevant basic principles of his research method in great detail in the essay The Experiment as Mediator of Subject and Object, written around 1794.

The perceiving human being and the use of measuring instruments

Goethe was largely skeptical about the use of artificial measuring instruments, insofar as they separate people from the direct perception of nature and only reproduce a purely quantitative picture of natural phenomena. It is only in man that the phenomena present themselves in their all-round qualitative context, which is the actual goal of Goethean natural science to explore.

The use of artificial instruments that expand the natural limits of human perception, such as microscopes or telescopes , is entirely permissible and desirable from a Goetheanist point of view, provided that one always remains aware that they narrow the field of observation and thereby take the phenomena from their natural ones remove connection. Goethe himself was very enthusiastic about microscopic studies.

Perceived power of judgment – the right combination of thinking and perception

Through thinking , the conceptual side of the phenomena becomes accessible, which in reality is inseparably connected with them, but which remains hidden from mere sensory perception. The conceptual context is part of the phenomenon itself. It is revealed when phenomena are given the space in thought to express themselves in their inner essential contexts. This only succeeds if ready-made thought patterns are not imposed on the phenomena that can be observed with the senses, but if one has enough patience to wait until their thought content is revealed in the spiritual perception itself.

With Goethe, thinking never separates itself from the observed phenomena, but goes hand in hand with them – a method that can rightly be described as ” visual judgment “:

The conventional scientific method is based on separating out a few data that can be recorded as quantitatively as possible from the abundance of sensory phenomena presented to the eye and seeing whether they can be placed in a conceptual context that can be described in an abstract way. The non-quantifiable sensory qualities themselves are largely disregarded, thinking itself is imageless. Wherever possible, an exact mathematical formulation of the laws of nature is sought. In this way, nature is first reduced to an abstract structure, which one then thinks about separately, without seeking to reconnect with the full essence of nature. This is also not possible otherwise if you want to record nature quantitatively, otherwise you would drown in an endless flood of data.

In contrast to the abstract thinking that characterizes contemporary natural science, one can speak of concrete, sensual thinking in the case of Goethe. The “perceptive power of judgement” seeks the “ primeval , typical« to grasp, the idea of ​​the thing, which, however, does not reveal itself directly to sensory experience, but only to intuiting thinking. Only in this way can nature be experienced in its actuality. Perception and thinking, taken separately, only provide one half of reality; it is only fully grasped when thinking and perception penetrate one another. It is the basic error of modern science that it sees a reality in what is externally perceptible, be it directly through the senses or indirectly through the most diverse measuring instruments, of which it tries to create a mental image. The outer world appears to her to be objective and self-contained, the thoughts that man forms about it are regarded as subjective. In fact, however, subject and object are mere appearances, both of which are encompassed by actual reality. “Thinking is accessible to that side of reality”, says Rudolf Steiner, “of which a mere sense being would never experience anything. It is not there to regurgitate sensuality, but to penetrate what is hidden from it. Perception of the senses only delivers one side of reality. The other side is the thinking apprehension of the world.” ( The perception of the senses provides only one side of reality. The other side is the thinking apprehension of the world.” ( The perception of the senses provides only one side of reality. The other side is the thinking apprehension of the world.” (Lit.: GA 2, S. 63) The human cognitive faculty is designed in such a way that reality first opens up to the human being separately from two different sides, thus remaining a mere appearance until he unites them through his active spiritual activity and thus breaks through to reality itself, which like us already have seen encompasses more than mere material reality. How deeply man is able to penetrate into the reality of the natural world will depend on how attentively he is able to perceive its sensual side and how much he is able to counter to what is so sensually perceived through his more or less richly developed inner life. More and more aspects of reality can open up to people the more they train their powers of observation and the more they enrich their inner life. ThroughNature cannot be experienced in its reality by passive perception alone; it wants to be actively grasped by inner activity. And to do this, the human being must stimulate the same creative powers that have a physical formative effect in nature. Discursive thinking is not enough for this, but intuitive thinking is required that is able to grasp the archetypal in the phenomena . Kant described such an intuitive cognitive facultyas “intellectus archetypus”, ie as archetypal understanding. Goethe was aware that he had at his disposal a sensuous, supersensible, archetypal intuition that Kant considered fundamentally possible, but felt he had to deny people. Goethe had a decidedly different opinion here:

Exact sensual fantasy

It is in the nature of life that it cannot be grasped purely sensually as a finished, completed form. What is revealed to the sensual gaze is only a tiny excerpt of an unfolding chronological figure. For example, in order to visualize the whole plant livingly changing through various forms, one must use the ability to remember. Only if one imitates the complete development of the plant in one’s inner soul can its complete temporal form be revealed. Goethe particularly cultivated this power of memory, which is more than just momentary sensual viewing. And that is also necessary, because how pale and abstract, how little true to detail is our everyday memory. What we can mentally and inwardly make conscious of the past events is as a rule only a weak imitation of the original, direct, sensory experience, and on top of that it is usually quite falsified; our memory is all too quickly seized by the powers of imagination, which in many ways transform what we have once experienced, and all the more so the more fragmentary the memory is. Unconsciously, we tend to fill in the gaps in our memory in a highly imaginative way, thereby obscuring what really was. If one wants to capture the living in a really exact way, then the memory has to be educated and strengthened. Above all, the abstract, imageless, merely conceptually oriented memory can become a fully saturated, detailed inner visual perception that is as little as possible inferior to direct sensory perception in terms of intensity and fidelity. The prerequisite for this being able to succeed at all is that we become much more attentive, much more awake in our sensual viewing than we are in everyday life. Modern man’s gaze in particular is often so fleeting that he only really sees very little of what is spread out before his eyes. Rather than we suspect, we walk through the world as half-blind people. In order to really look at something, you not only need healthy senses, but also active mental strength to grasp what is presented to the senses. Learning to see (and seeing is used here as an example for all other senses too, of which sight is only the most prominent for us) must therefore be the first virtue to be acquired. This is in complete contrast to current scientific methods, in which attentive perception is replaced as far as possible by an abstract measurement process. Precisely those sub-disciplines of biology in which this sensible looking was still cultivated, such as morphology, are becoming increasingly insignificant compared to the molecular-biological approach! Thus the modern “naturalist” often does not stand in front of the rich abundance of the natural world right from the start, but only in front of a highly abstract section of it. of which the sense of sight is only the most prominent for us) must therefore be the first virtue to be acquired. This is in complete contrast to current scientific methods, in which attentive perception is replaced as far as possible by an abstract measurement process. Precisely those sub-disciplines of biology in which this sensible looking was still cultivated, such as morphology, are becoming increasingly insignificant compared to the molecular-biological approach! Thus the modern “naturalist” often does not stand in front of the rich abundance of the natural world right from the start, but only in front of a highly abstract section of it. of which the sense of sight is only the most prominent for us) must therefore be the first virtue to be acquired. This is in complete contrast to current scientific methods, in which attentive perception is replaced as far as possible by an abstract measurement process. Precisely those sub-disciplines of biology in which this sensible looking was still cultivated, such as morphology, are becoming increasingly insignificant compared to the molecular-biological approach! Thus the modern “naturalist” often does not stand in front of the rich abundance of the natural world right from the start, but only in front of a highly abstract section of it. in which attentive perception is replaced as far as possible by an abstract measuring process. Precisely those sub-disciplines of biology in which this sensible looking was still cultivated, such as morphology, are becoming increasingly insignificant compared to the molecular-biological approach! Thus the modern “naturalist” often does not stand in front of the rich abundance of the natural world right from the start, but only in front of a highly abstract section of it. in which attentive perception is replaced as far as possible by an abstract measuring process. Precisely those sub-disciplines of biology in which this sensible looking was still cultivated, such as morphology, are becoming increasingly insignificant compared to the molecular-biological approach! Thus the modern “naturalist” often does not stand in front of the rich abundance of the natural world right from the start, but only in front of a highly abstract section of it.

The more and the more intensively we are aware of the inner mental picture of a sensually appearing plant, and the more we succeed in doing this for the most diverse stages of development, the closer we get to its true nature. This will be revealed to us if we now succeed in inner spiritual activity in lawfully transforming the individual stages of this plant’s development into one another. We then, as it were, allow the plant to grow within us as an inner image. Only now we don’t look at them from the outside, but are actively involved in their development. In this way we mentally appropriate the shape-forming forces ruling within it, which shape the physically appearing plant outside, we connect with them. And when we finally, as if in a single moment, understand the whole development of this plant, look inwardly at a rose or a lily, for example, then their actual life, which is of a supernatural nature, is present in our soul. What we like Looking at the type of rose, for example, works as a formative force in all other roses that we encounter in the sensual world. The “intellectus archetypus” that Kant spoke of but denied to human beings lives on in us. What is inwardly grasped as a type of rose or lily, etc., cannot possibly be thought of as a rigid, immobile figure. It is a living, moving principle through and through, which is active as a unified principle in all parts of the sensually appearing plant. Only because Goethe stimulated this archetypal understanding in himself was he able to understand plant life in the way he recorded it in his theory of metamorphosis.

Sensual and moral effects

The results of natural research only become really fruitful when they seek a direct relationship to humans. The gap between subject and object opened up by our consciousness is thereby overcome. In his theory of colors, for example, Goethe was looking for this relation to people who felt alive.

It is characteristic of Goethe’s holistically oriented style of research that he does not limit his investigations to the mere physical color phenomena, but also includes psychological factors and studies their mutual interaction. Accordingly, the chapter on the sensual and moral effect of colors occupies a very special place in Goethe’s color theory, in which Goethe describes in great detail how the individual colors affect the human mind. The same polarity is shown here as with the purely physical phenomena.

The light delights our soul, the darkness all too easily darkens our mood and often frightens us. White is the color of joy and innocence, black the color of death, sadness and guilt. Yellow is the closest color to light. The reddish-yellow hues have an uplifting effect on the mind (just think of the proverbial rose-colored glasses ) and stimulate the will to be active.

On the systematics of Goethe’s research method

In the inorganic , thinking is used to arrange the qualities given to the senses through observation and experiment in such a way that one phenomenon becomes understandable in its states and processes as a result of other phenomena. A distinction is made between essential (necessary for the appearance of the phenomenon) and inessential (only modifying) conditions. Such a phenomenon, in which an immediately understandable, lawful connection with the essential conditions is shown, is a primal phenomenon . From such all relationships between further phenomena can be derived and the latter can be understood ( proving method ). So Goethe derived from the primal phenomenon of color(Origin of color in light, darkness and cloudiness) developed the basis of optics (Goethe 1891-1896).

In the living, the parts of the phenomena are no longer mutually dependent, but each individual is determined by the whole according to its own nature. When studying the processes, it is noticed that the transformations ( metamorphosis ) of the leaf organs of a plant from the cotyledons to the leaves, the sepals, petals, stamens and carpels take place from a basic form (the type ) (Bockemühl 1977; Adams , Whicher 1960); external conditions only have a modifying effect. In the same sense, the different species can be understood as special manifestations of the genus. This points to a sensual-super-sensualA process which in idea is the same in all plants, which in appearance produces different forms both in the individual plant and in the whole plant kingdom, and which Goethe called the Urplant (the general plant type). From this, according to Goethe, plants can be invented to infinity, which must be consistent and have an inner truth and necessity ( developing method ).

In the ensouled , the formation of inner organs comes to the fore as a formative phenomenon. Animals and plants are living beings alike, and yet they differ significantly in their vital activity. The plant is firmly rooted in the earth, tied to it; the animal is able to move freely in space, and what’s more, it is filled with inner movement of the soul, which the plant completely lacks. The inner life of the animal’s soul manifests itself outwardly in the instinct and drive-bound autonomy; beyond that, the human being has a conscious part in the spiritual within himself. In connection with this, the change in animal and human forms, in contrast to the metamorphosis of plant forms, contains significant leaps, which are caused, among other things, by invagination(e.g. in the formation of internal organs) or eversion , e.g. B. of long bones in the skull bones (Steiner 1926), can be understood. The developing method is thus extended to the inversion method , with the help of which, among other things, the threefold animal and human formation is explored (Poppelbaum 1938; Schad 1971).

The human spirit shapes the shape and function of the body in a special way. In contrast to animals, the effects of the nervous and sensory system permeated by dying processes and the metabolic and limb system living in building processes are mediated in the physical body of the human being by an independent rhythmic system, which momentarily stimulates the momentarily paralyzed life again, in such a way that they form the physiological basis of thinking , wanting and feeling; through these soul activities the human individuality can continue its own development (Steiner 1917). The human Ibecomes the determining center of the three-part organism in which the three-part soul life unfolds. The consciousness , which the animals also have in varying degrees, is thus increased to the point of self-confidence . Proceeding from this, Goetheanism then tries to understand and shape the social organism in its threefold structure into spiritual, legal and economic life (Steiner 1919).

Distinction from other research methods or methodologies

Goetheanism as an applied research method is not subject to any further definition in the sense of a recipe-like methodology, apart from the determination that Goethe himself had given to his science and the anthroposophical understanding of Goethe’s research. There is no agreement on what exactly is meant by Goetheanism. In general, however, scientific research can be described as Goetheanism, which is based on Goethe and – from the point of view of anthroposophists – on the understanding of Goethe by Rudolf Steiner. For a closer, respective determination one must look at the concrete research practice. It expresses the Goetheanistic way of research.

Science in the spirit of Goethe is also practiced outside of anthroposophical research circles. In essence, therefore, there can be Goetheanistic research without the term “Goetheanism” being used, which on the other hand can also easily pass as a synonym for “anthroposophical research” ^[3] .

Albrecht Schad wants to distinguish Goetheanism from anthroposophy as “spiritual” science or research:

Others hold that what is essential is the exit from the phenomenal, from the observed or perceived. It could also be something that is perceived spiritually, i.e. supersensibly, to which the thoughts as perceptible to thinking already belong.

In the social and cultural sciences in particular, there are scientists who deny that science can be clearly distinguished from art. In this respect, Goetheanistic research can also contain an artistic component, the meaning and value of which can only be understood by following through, but cannot be defined in the abstract. The problem with such an expansion is the danger of becoming arbitrary, for example in the creative design of social sculpture in the sense of Joseph Beuys . In such a case, fantastically conceived things can come into an incorrect relationship with the surrounding social realities (the plastic “materials”) that need to be redesigned, but nevertheless assert themselves and help determine social reality [4].

Rudolf Steiner sees a reunification of science, art and religion in the distant future [source]. A beginning of this can be seen in today’s Goetheanism.

On the other hand, in the interest of serious science, published research results must be accompanied by a comprehensible explanation of the methodological procedure that satisfies scientific standards. A simple reference to the fact that the Goethean method was used is not enough, since this can be understood to mean a wide variety of things.

Goethe quotes

“A phenomenon, an experiment cannot prove anything, it is a link in a great chain that only applies in context. Whoever wanted to cover a string of pearls and show only the most beautiful one by one, demanding that we should believe him that the rest are all like that, hardly would anyone enter into the trade.”
Proverbs in Prose 160, Maxims and Reflections 501

“No phenomenon is self-explanatory; only many viewed together, methodically ordered, finally give something that could be valid for theory.”
Proverbs in Prose 161, Maxims and Reflections 500

“The highest thing would be to understand that everything factual is already theory. The blueness of the sky reveals the basic law of chromaticism to us. Just don’t look for anything behind the phenomena; they themselves are the teaching.”
Proverbs in Prose 165, Maxims and Reflections 488

“There is a delicate empiricism that makes itself intimately identical with the object and thus becomes the actual theory. But this increase in intellectual faculty belongs to a highly educated age.”
Proverbs in Prose 167, Maxims and Reflections 509

Literature 

• Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1891-1896): Scientific Writings . Sophien edition, Weimar
• Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1883-1897): Scientific Writings . Ed. Joseph Kürschner, vol. 114 – 117, 1883-1897, photomechanical reprint Dornach 1982, ISBN 3-7274-5210-2 (series, 5 volumes)
• Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1947 – 2011 / III.Abt.: 2014 – ): Goethe. The writings on natural science , Leopoldina edition, first complete and historical-critical edition with 18 commentary volumes, edited by Dorothea Kuhn, Wolf von Engelhardt and Irmgard Müller. Publisher Hermann Böhlau’s successor Weimar, ISBN: 978-3-7400-0024-0 (complete works) Leopoldina.org  ; (The last editions of the Munich and Frankfurt editions adopted the texts edited in the Leopoldina edition. Press release on the Leopoldina edition ), [the Hamburg edition is also based on the work of the Leopoldina]; (A “text was produced which for the first time presents the genuine Goethean version of some essays without the changes, rearrangements, deletions by Eckermann, Riemer or other editors of the 19th century.” (From the description of the book trade [2] ) )
• Rudolf Magnus: Goethe as a natural scientist , published by Johann Ambrosius Barth, Leipzig 1906; eBook Verlag ModerneZeiten 2012 ASIN B006WSK1F8 ; archive.org
• Herbert Rowland (ed.): Goethe, Chaos, and Complexity , BRILL/RODOPI 2001, ISBN 978-9042015661
• Christopher Bamford (Hrsg.): Homage to Pythagoras: Rediscovering Sacred Science, Lindisfarne Books 1994, ISBN 978-0940262638
• David Seamon, Arthur Zajonc: Goethe’s Way of Science: A Phenomenology of Nature, State University of New York Press 1998, ISBN 978-0791436820
• Ernst-Michael Kranich : Thinking Beyond Darwin , Lindisfarne Press 1999, ISBN 978-0940262935 ; eBook ASIN B008YZGSTA
• Reiner Penter: Goethe’s scientific method – On the unity of nature and researchers academia.edu
• Renatus Ziegler : spirit and letter. Rudolf Steiner as editor of Goethe’s scientific writings , Rudolf-Steiner-Verlag 2018, ISBN 978-3-7274-5334-2 , table of contents (to be published in May 2018)
• Adams, G. and O. Whicher (1960): The Plant in Space and Counterspace . Stuttgart 1960
• Amrine, Frederick / Zucker, Francis J. / Wheeler, H. (Eds.): Goethe and the Sciences: A Reappraisal, Springer Netherlands, 1987, ISBN 978-90-277-2400-7, Inhalt
• Bockemühl, Jochen: The forming movements of plants . In: Manifestations of the etheric , Stuttgart 1977, ISBN 3-7725-0401-9
• Bockemühl, Jochen: Goethe’s scientific method under the aspect of responsibility formation . Elements of Natural Science 38 1983, pp. 50-52
• Bockemühl, Jochen: The fruitfulness of Goethe’s approach to science in the present . Elements of Natural Science 61 1994, pp. 52-69
• Bortoft, Henri: Goethe’s Scientific Method . Stuttgart 1995, ISBN 3-7725-1544-4
• Dietz, Karl-Martin / Messmer, Barbara: Pushing boundaries – experiencing reality. Perspectives on Anthroposophical Research , Free Spiritual Life, 1998, ISBN 3-7725-1639-4 , content
• Göbel, Thomas: Imbue experience with ideas. Goethe’s scientific working method , in Die Drei, 1982 H.2, p. 69-78, (also printed in: Göbel, Thomas: Natur und Kunst , p. 13 – 24, Stuttgart 1998, ISBN 3-7725-1748-X )
• Heusser, Peter (ed.): Goethe’s contribution to the renewal of the natural sciences. The book accompanying the lecture series of the same name at the University of Bern . Bern Stuttgart Vienna 2000, ISBN 3-258-06083-5
• Cool, J.: Goethe’s theory of colors and modern physics . In P. Heusser (ed.): Goethe’s contribution to the renewal of the natural sciences . Bern Stuttgart Vienna 2000, ISBN 3-258-06083-5
• Ernst-Michael Kranich : Goetheanism – its method and meaning in the science of the living. Elements of Natural Science 86, 2007, pp. 31-45, review by Peer Schilperoord
• Poppelbaum, H.: Animal essence . Dornach 1954 (1938)
• Robbins, Brent Dean (ed.): Goethe’s Delicate Empiricism, Janus Head 8/1, Sommer 2005, (Essays zu Goethe) open access
• Herbert Witzenmann : Goethe’s universal aesthetic impulse , Gideon-Spicker-Verlag 1988, ISBN 3857041552
• Wolfgang Schad : Mammals and Man . Stuttgart 1971
• Wolfgang Schad : The epistemology of the Goethean world view in Goethe ‘s draft . Tycho de Brahe Yearbook for Goetheanism 1986, pp. 9-30, ISBN 3-926347-00-7
• Wolfgang Schad : The Goetheanistic approach to research and its application to the ecological problem of dying forests . In GR Schnell (ed.): Waldsterben , Stuttgart 1987, ISBN 3-7725-0549-X
• Wolfgang Schad : Everything is paper . Tycho de Brahe Yearbook for Goetheanism 1999, pp. 9-33, ISBN 3-926347-21-X
• Wolfgang Schad : What is Goetheanism? Tycho de Brahe Yearbook for Goetheanism 2001, pp. 23-66, ISBN 3-926347-23-6 (English version: PDF )
• Schad, Albrecht: The Goetheanistic Approach to the Living , in: Reality and Idea. Goethe’s World Access and the Spiritual Background of the North , ed. by Hartwig Schiller, Verlag Freies Geistleben, 2008, ISBN 978-3-7725-2196-6 , pp. 95-122
• Schieren, Jost: Beholding judgment. The philosophical and methodological foundations of Goethe’s scientific cognition . Düsseldorf/Bonn 1998, ISBN 3-930450-27-5 .
• Schilperoord, Peer: Anschaude Judgment , 2008, in: Elements of Natural Science No. 89, 2008, pp. 42 – 59 PDF
• Seamon, David / Arthur Zajonc (Eds.): Goethe’s Way of Science. A Phenomenology of Nature, Suny Press 1998, Inhalt
• Suchantke, Andreas: Metamorphosis. trick of evolution. Stuttgart 2002, ISBN 3-7725-1784-6 .
• Suchantke, Andreas: Goetheanism as “grounding” of anthroposophy. In: The Three. Issues 2 and 3, 2006
• Rudolf Steiner : Goethe’s natural scientific writings , GA 1 (1962) pdf pdf(2) html mobi epub archive.org Deutsch: rsarchive.org
• Rudolf Steiner : Basic lines of an epistemology of the Goethean world view . Dornach 1984, GA 2 , ISBN 3-7274-6290-6 pdf pdf(2) html mobi epub archive.org Deutsch: rsarchive.org
• Rudolf Steiner : Goethe’s Weltanschauung . Dornach 1985, GA 6 (1897), ISBN 3-7274-6250-7 pdf pdf(2) html mobi epub archive.org Deutsch: rsarchive.org
• Rudolf Steiner : Riddles of the Soul , GA 21 pdf pdf(2) html mobi epub archive.org Deutsch: rsarchive.org
• Rudolf Steiner : Mystery Truths and Christmas Impulses , GA 180 (1966) pdf pdf(2) html mobi epub archive.org Deutsch: rsarchive.org
• Rudolf Steiner : Earthly death and cosmic life. Anthroposophical gifts of life. Consciousness Necessities for Present and Future , GA 181 (1991), ISBN 3-7274-1810-9 pdf pdf(2) html mobi epub archive.org Deutsch: rsarchive.org
• Rudolf Steiner : The relationship between the various scientific fields and astronomy , GA 323 , ISBN 3-7274-3230-6 pdf pdf(2) html mobi epub archive.org Deutsch: rsarchive.org

Cultural and Social Sciences

• Dietz, Karl-Martin / Messmer, Barbara: Pushing boundaries – experiencing reality. Perspectives on Anthroposophical Research , Free Spiritual Life, 1998, ISBN 3-7725-1639-4 , content
• Henningfeld, Iris: Goethe’s Urphenomen. A phenomenological contribution to an expanded concept of experience , in: Die Drei, volume 1/2015, pp. 37-47, synopsis
• Maatsch, Jonas (HG): Morphology and modernity: Goethe’s “descriptive thinking” in the humanities and cultural studies since 1800 , Berlin; Boston, Mass. : De Gruyter 2014, table of contents: PDF , ISBN 978-3-11-037212-0
• Robbins, Brent Dean (ed.): Goethe’s Delicate Empiricism, Janus Head 8/1, Sommer 2005, (Essays zu Goethe) open access
• Hans Georg Schweppenhäuser : Natural science and social science – their methods and knowledge bases , in: Schweppenhäuser, Hans Georg: The social enigma in the changes of individuals and societies of the modern age , Vlg. at the Goetheanum, Dornach 1985, revised, shortened and provided with references by Manfred Kannenberg-Rentschler, ISBN 3-7235-0363-2 , Contents , pp. 74-123
• Rudolf Steiner : The Key Points of the Social Question . GA no. 23, Dornach 1976, ISBN 3-7274-0230-X
• Zimmermann, Heinz: How can Goetheanism stimulate the work of the quorum? , in: Reality and Idea. Goethe’s World Access and the Spiritual Background of the North , ed. by Hartwig Schiller, Verlag Freies Geistleben, 2008, ISBN 978-3-7725-2196-6 , pp. 331-346

Early Goetheanists

• Renate Riemeck : Examples of Goethean thinking. Man as a Spiritual Being , study material, ed. from the work of the Humanus Foundation Basel, Verlag die Porte, Basel 1974, PDF

According to the series “Writings of Early Goetheanism” published by Urachhaus-Verlag in 1980-83, the following authors and works are to be considered as Goetheanism:

• Joseph Ennemoser (1787 – 1854): investigation into the origin and nature of the human soul
• Karl Ernst von Baer (1792 – 1876): Development and determination in nature
• Wilhelm Heinrich Preuss (1843 – 1909): spirit and matter. Explanations of the relationship between the world and man according to the testimony of the organisms archive.org
• Johann Carl Passavant (1787 – 1861): On the freedom of the will, and other writings
• Ernst Freiherr von Nassersleben (1806 – 1849): On the dietetics of the soul
• Karl Snell (1806 – 1886): Creation of man