Goethe's World View
GA 6
Part I.2: The Platonic World View
[ 1 ] With the admirable boldness characteristic of him, Plato expresses this mistrust of experience: the things of this world, which our senses perceive, have no true being at all; they are always becoming but never are. They have only a relative existence, they are, in their totality, only in and through their relationship to each other; one can therefore just as well call their whole existence a non-existence. They are consequently also not objects of any actual knowledge. For, only about what is, in and for itself and always in the same way, can there be such knowledge; they, on the other hand, are only the object of what we, through sensation, take them to be. As long as we are limited only to our perception of them, we are like people who sit in a dark cave so firmly bound that they cannot even turn their heads and who see nothing except, on the wall facing them, by the light of a fire burning behind them, the shadow images of real things which are led across between them and the fire, and who in fact also see of each other, yes each of himself, only the shadows on that wall. Their wisdom, however, would be to predict the sequence of those shadows which they have learned to know from experience.
[ 2 ] The Platonic view tears the picture of the world-whole into two parts, into the mental picture of a seeming world and into a world of ideas to which alone true eternal reality is thought to correspond. “What alone can be called truly existing, because they always are, but never become nor pass away are the ideal archetypal images of those shadow images, are the eternal ideas, the archetypal forms of all things. To them no multiplicity can be ascribed; for each is by its very nature only one, insofar as it is the archetypal picture itself, whose copies or shadows are all the single transitory things which bear the same name and are of the same kind. To them can also be ascribed no arising and passing away; for they are truly existing, never becoming, however, nor' perishing like their copies which vanish away. Of them alone, therefore, is there actual knowledge, since only that can be the object of such knowledge which always and in every respect is, not that which is, but then again is not, depending on how one looks at it.”
[ 3 ] The separation of idea and perception is justified only when one speaks of how human knowledge comes about. The human being must allow things to speak to him in a twofold way. They tell him one part of their being of their own free will. He need only listen to them. This is the part of reality that is free of ideas. The other pan, however, he must coax from them. He must bring his thinking into movement, and then his inner life fills with the ideas of things. Within the inner life of the personality is the stage upon which things also reveal their ideal inner life. There they speak out what remains eternally hidden to outer perception. The being of nature breaks here into speech. But it is only due to our human organization that things must become known through the sounding together of two tones. In nature one stimulator is there that brings forth both tones. The unbiased person listens to their consonance. He recognizes in the ideal language of his own inner life the statements which things allow to come to him. Only someone who has lost his impartiality will interpret the matter differently. He believes that the language of his inner life comes out of a different realm from the language of outer perception. Plato became conscious of what weight the fact has for man's world view that the world reveals itself to the human being from two sides. Out of his insightful valuation of this fact, he recognized that reality cannot be attributed to the sense world, regarded only by itself. Only when the world of ideas lights up out of his soul life, and man, in looking at the world, can place before his spirit idea and sense observation as a unified knowledge experience does he have true reality before him. What sense observation has before itself, without its being shone through by the light of ideas, is a world of semblance. Regarded in this way light is also shed by Plato's insight upon the view of Parmenides as to the deceptive nature of sense-perceptible things. And one can say that the philosophy of Plato is one of the most sublime edifices of thought that has ever sprung from the spirit of mankind. Platonism is the conviction that the goal of all striving for knowledge must be to acquire the ideas which carry the world and which constitute its foundation. Whoever cannot awaken this conviction within himself does not understand the Platonic world view.—Insofar as Platonism has taken hold in the evolution of Western thought, however, it shows still another side. Plato did not stop short at emphasizing the knowledge that, in human perception the sense world becomes a mere semblance if the light of the world of ideas is not shone upon it, but rather, through the way he presented this fact, he furthered the belief that the sense world, in and for itself, irrespective of man, is a world of semblance, and that true reality is to be found only in ideas. Out of this belief there arises the question: how do idea and sense world (nature) come together outside the human being? For someone who, outside of man, can acknowledge no sense world devoid of ideas, the question about the relationship of idea and sense world is one which must be sought and solved within the being of man. And this is how the matter stands for the Goethean world view. For it, the question, “What relationship exists outside of man between idea and sense world?” is an unhealthy one, because for it there is no sense world (nature) without idea outside of man. Only man can detach the idea from the sense world for himself and thus picture nature to be devoid of idea. Therefore one can say: for the Goethean world view the question, “How do idea and sense-perceptible things come together?”, which has occupied the evolution of Western thought for centuries, is an entirely superfluous question. And the results of this stream of Platonism, running through the evolution of Western thought, which confronted Goethe, for example, in the above conversation with Schiller, but also in other cases, worked upon his feelings like an unhealthy element in man's way of picturing things. Something he did not express clearly in words but which lived in his feelings and became an impulse that helped shape his own world view is the view that what healthy human feeling teaches us at every moment—namely how the language of observation and that of thinking unite in order to reveal full reality—was not heeded by the thinkers sunk in their reflections. Instead of looking at how nature speaks to man, they fashioned artificial concepts about the relationship of the world of ideas and experience. In order to see the full extent of the deep significance of this direction of thought, which Goethe felt to be unhealthy, within the world views confronting him and by which he wanted to orient himself, one must consider how the stream of Platonism just indicated, which evaporates the sense world into a mere semblance and which thereby brings the world of ideas into a distorted relationship to it, one must consider how this Platonism has grown stronger through a one-sided philosophical apprehension of Christian truth in the course of the evolution of Western thought. Because the Christian view confronted Goethe as connected with the stream of Platonism which he felt to be unhealthy, he could only with difficulty develop a relationship with Christianity. Goethe did not follow in detail how the stream of Platonism which he rejected worked on in the evolution of Christian thought, but he did feel the results of it working on within the ways of thinking which confronted him. Therefore a study of how these results came to be in these ways of thinking which developed through the centuries before Goethe came on the scene will shed light on how his way of picturing things took shape. The Christian evolution of thought, in many of its representatives, sought to come to terms with belief in the beyond and with the value that sense existence has in the face of the spiritual world. If one surrendered oneself to the view that the relationship of the sense world to the world of ideas has a significance apart from man, then, with the question arising from this, one came into the view of a divine world order. And the church fathers, to whom this question came, had to form thoughts for themselves as to the role played by the Platonic world of ideas within this divine world order. One not only stood in danger thereby of thinking that what unite in human knowing through direct perception, namely idea and sense world, are separated off by themselves outside of man, but one also stood in danger of separating them from each other, so that ideas, outside of what is given to man as nature, now also lead an existence for themselves within a spirituality separated from nature. If one joined this mental picture, which rested on an untrue view of the world of ideas and of the sense world, with the justified view that the divine can never be present in the human soul in full consciousness, then a total tearing apart of the world of ideas and nature resulted. Then one seeks what always should be sought within the human spirit, outside it, within the created world. The archetypal images of all things begin to be thought of as contained within the divine spirit. The world becomes the imperfect reflection of the perfect world of ideas resting in God. The human soul then, as the result of a one-sided apprehension of Platonism, becomes separated from the relationship of idea and “reality.” The soul extends what it justifiably thinks to be its relationship to the divine world order out over the relationship which lives in it between the world of ideas and the seeming world of the senses. Augustine comes, through a way of looking at things such as this, to views like the following: “Without wavering we want to believe that the thinking soul is not of the same nature as God, for He allows no community but that the soul can, however, become enlightened through taking part in the nature of God.” In this way, then, when this way of picturing things is one-sidedly overdone, the possibility is taken away from the human soul of experiencing, in its contemplation of nature, also the world of ideas as the being of reality. And experiencing the ideas is also interpreted as unchristian. The one-sided view of Platonism is extended over Christianity itself. Platonism as a philosophical world view stays more in the element of thinking; religious sentiment immerses thinking into the life of feeling and establishes it in this way within man's nature. Anchored this way within man's soul life, the unhealthy element of one-sided Platonism could gain a deeper significance in the evolution of Western thought than if it had remained mere philosophy. For centuries this development of thought stood before questions like these: how does what man forms as ideas stand with respect to the things of reality? Are the concepts that live in the human soul through the world of ideas only mental pictures, names, which have nothing to do with reality? Are they themselves something real which man receives through perceiving reality and through grasping it with his intellect? Such questions, for the Goethean world view, are not intellectual questions about something or other lying outside of man's being. Within human contemplation of reality these questions solve themselves with inexhaustible liveliness through true human knowing. And this Goethean world view must not only find that within Christian thoughts there live the results of a one-sided Platonism, but it feels itself estranged from genuine Christianity when the latter confronts him permeated with such Platonism.—What lives in many of the thoughts which Goethe developed within himself in order to make the world comprehensible to himself was rejection of that stream of Platonism which he experienced as unhealthy. The fact that besides this he had an open sense for the Platonic lifting of the human soul up to the world of ideas is attested to by many a statement made in this direction. He felt within himself the active working of the reality of ideas when, in his way, he approached nature through contemplation and research; he felt that nature itself spoke in the language of ideas, when the soul opens itself to such language. But he could not agree that one regard the world of ideas as something isolated and thus create for oneself the possibility, with respect to an idea about the nature of plants, of saying: that is no experience, that is an idea. He felt there that his spiritual eye beheld the idea as a reality, just as the physical eye sees the physical part of the plant being. Thus that Platonism which is directed into the world of ideas established itself in all its purity in Goethe's world view, and the stream of Platonism that leads away from reality is overcome in it. Because his world view took this form, Goethe had also to reject what presented itself to him as Christian views in such a way that it could only appear to him to be transformed one-sided Platonism. And he had to feel that in the forms of many a world view which confronted him and with which he wanted to come to terms, one had not succeeded in overcoming within Western culture the Christian-Platonic view of reality which was not in accordance with nature nor with ideas.
Die platonische Weltanschauung
[ 1 ] Mit der ihm eigenen bewunderungswerten Kühnheit spricht Plato dieses Mißtrauen in die Erfahrung aus: Die Dinge dieser Welt, welche unsere Sinne wahrnehmen, haben gar kein wahres Sein: sie werden immer, sind aber nie. Sie haben nur ein relatives Sein, sind insgesamt nur in und durch ihr Verhältnis zueinander; man kann daher ihr ganzes Dasein ebensowohl ein Nichtsein nennen. Sie sind folglich auch nicht Objekte einer eigentlichen Erkenntnis. Denn nur von dem, was an und für sich und immer auf gleiche Weise ist, kann es eine solche geben; sie hingegen sind nur das Objekt eines durch Empfindung veranlaßten Dafürhaltens. So lange wir nur auf ihre Wahrnehmung beschränkt sind, gleichen wir Menschen, die in einer finsteren Höhle so fest gebunden saßen, daß sie auch den Kopf nicht drehen könnten und nichts sehen, als beim Lichte eines hinter ihnen brennenden Feuers, an der Wand ihnen gegenüber die Schattenbilder wirklicher Dinge, welche zwischen ihnen und dem Feuer vorübergeführt würden, und auch sogar von einander, ja jeder von sich selbst, eben nur die Schatten an jener Wand. Ihre Weisheit aber wäre, die ans Erfahrung erlernte Reihenfolge jener Schatten vorherzusagen.
[ 2 ] In zwei Teile reißt die platonische Anschauung die Vorstellung des Weltganzen auseinander, in die Vorstellung einer Scheinwelt und in eine andere der Ideenwelt, der allein wahre, ewige Wirklichkeit entsprechen soll. «Was allein wahrhaft seiend genannt werden kann, weil es immer ist, aber nie wird, noch vergeht: das sind die idealen Urbilder jener Schattenbilder, es sind die ewigen Ideen, die Urformen aller Dinge. Ihnen kommt keine Vielheit zu; denn jedes ist seinem Wesen nach nur eines, indem es das Urbild selbst ist, dessen Nachbilder oder Schatten alle ihm gleichnamige, einzelne, vergängliche Dinge derselben Art sind. Ihnen kommt auch kein Entstehen und Vergehen zu; denn sie sind wahrhaft seiend, nie aber werdend, noch untergehend wie ihre hinschwindenden Nachbilder. Von ihnen allein daher gibt es eine eigentliche Erkenntnis, da das Objekt einer solchen nur das sein kann, was immer und in jedem Betracht ist, nicht das, was ist, aber auch wieder nicht ist, je nachdem man es ansieht.»
[ 3 ] Die Unterscheidung von Idee und Wahrnehmung hat nur eine Berechtigung, wenn von der Art gesprochen wird, wie die menschliche Erkenntnis zustande kommt. Der Mensch muß die Dinge auf zweifache Art zu sich sprechen lassen. Einen Teil ihrer Wesenheit sagen sie ihm freiwillig. Er braucht nur hinzuhorchen. Dies ist der ideenfreie Teil der Wirklichkeit. Den andern aber muß er ihnen entlocken. Er muß sein Denken in Bewegung setzen, dann erfüllt sich sein Inneres mit den Ideen der Dinge. Im Innern der Persönlichkeit ist der Schauplatz, auf dem auch die Dinge ihr ideelles Innere enthüllen. Da sprechen sie aus, was der äußeren Anschauung ewig verborgen bleibt. Das Wesen der Natur kommt hier zu Worte. Aber es liegt nur an der menschlichen Organisation, daß durch den Zusammenklang von zwei Tönen die Dinge erkannt werden müssen. In der Natur ist ein Erreger da, der beide Töne hervorbringt. Der unbefangene Mensch horcht auf den Zusammenklang. Er erkennt in der ideellen Sprache seines Innern die Aussagen, die ihm die Dinge zukommen lassen. Nur wer die Unbefangenheit verloren hat, der deutet die Sache anders. Er glaubt, die Sprache seines Inneren komme aus einem andern Reich als die Sprache der äußeren Anschauung. Plato ist es zum Bewußtsein gekommen, welches Gewicht für die menschliche Weltanschauung die Tatsache hat, daß die Welt sich dem Menschen von zwei Seiten her offenbart. Aus der einsichtsvollen Wertung dieser Tatsache erkannte er, daß der Sinneswelt, allein für sich betrachtet, nicht Wirklichkeit zugesprochen werden darf. Erst wenn aus dem Seelenleben heraus die Ideenwelt aufleuchtet und im Anschauen der Welt der Mensch Idee und Sinnesbeobachtung als einheitliches Erkenntniserlebnis vor seinen Geist stellen kann, hat er wahre Wirklichkeit vor sich. Was die Sinnesbeobachtung vor sich hat, ohne daß es von dem Lichte der Ideen durchstrahlt wird, ist eine Scheinwelt. So betrachtet fällt von Platos Einsicht aus auch Licht auf die Ansicht des Parmenides von dem Trugcharakter der Sinnendinge. Und man kann sagen, die Philosophie Platos ist eines der erhabensten Gedankengebäude, die je aus dem Geiste der Menschheit entsprungen sind. Platonismus ist die Überzeugung, daß das Ziel alles Erkenntnisstrebens die Aneignung der die Welt tragenden und deren Grund bildenden Ideen sein müsse. Wer diese Überzeugung in sich nicht erwecken kann, der versteht die platonische Weltanschauung nicht. - Insofern aber der Platonismus in die abendländische Gedankenentwickelung eingegriffen hat, zeigt er noch eine andere Seite. Plato ist nicht dabei stehen geblieben, die Erkenntnis zu betonen, daß im menschlichen Anschauen die Sinneswelt zu einem Schein wird, wenn das Licht der Ideenwelt nicht auf sie geworfen wird, sondern er hat durch seine Darstellung dieser Tatsache der Meinung Vorschub geleistet, als ob die Sinneswelt für sich, abgesehen von dem Menschen, eine Scheinwelt sei und nur in den Ideen wahre Wirklichkeit zu finden. Aus dieser Meinung heraus entsteht die Frage: wie kommen Idee und Sinnenwelt (Natur) außerhalb des Menschen zu einander? Wer außerhalb des Menschen keine ideenlose Sinneswelt anerkennen kann, für den ist die Frage nach dem Verhältnis von Idee und Sinneswelt eine solche, die innerhalb der menschlichen Wesenheit gesucht und gelöst werden muß. Und so steht die Sache vor der Goetheschen Weltanschauung. Für diese ist die Frage: «welches Verhältnis besteht außerhalb des Menschen zwischen Idee und Sinneswelt?» eine ungesunde, weil es für sie keine Sinneswelt (Natur) ohne Idee außerhalb des Menschen gibt. Nur der Mensch kann für sich die Idee von der Sinneswelt lösen und so die Natur ideenlos vorstellen. Deshalb kann man sagen: für die Goethesche Weltanschauung ist die Frage: «wie kommen Idee und Sinnendinge zu einander?» welche die abendländische Gedankenentwickelung durch Jahrhunderte beschäftigt hat, eine vollkommen überflüssige Frage. Und der Niederschlag dieser durch die abendländische Gedankenentwickelung laufenden Strömung des Platonismus, der Goethe z. B. in dem angeführten Gespräche mit Schiller, aber auch in anderen Fällen entgegentrat, wirkte auf seine Empfindung wie ein ungesundes Element des menschlichen Vorstellens. Was er nicht deutlich mit Worten aussprach, was aber in seiner Empfindung lebte und ein mitgestaltender Impuls seiner eigenen Weltanschauung wurde, das ist die Ansicht: was das gesunde menschliche Empfinden in jedem Augenblicke lehrt: wie die Sprache der Anschauung und des Denkens sich verbinden, um die volle Wirklichkeit zu offenbaren, das wurde von den grübelnden Denkern nicht beachtet. Statt hinzusehen, wie die Natur zu dem Menschen spricht, bildeten sie künstliche Begriffe über das Verhältnis von Ideenwelt und Erfahrung aus. Um vollends zu überschauen, welch tiefe Bedeutung diese von Goethe als ungesund empfundene Denkrichtung in den Weltanschauungen hatte, die ihm entgegentraten und an denen er sich orientieren wollte, muß man bedenken, wie die angedeutete Strömung des Platonismus, welche die Sinnenwelt in Schein verflüchtigt, und die Ideenwelt dadurch in ein schiefes Verhältnis zu ihr bringt, durch eine einseitige philosophische Erfassung der christlichen Wahrheit im Laufe der abendländischen Gedankenentwicklung eine Verstärkung erfahren hat. Weil Goethe die christliche Anschauung, mit der von ihm als ungesund empfundenen Strömung des Platonismus verbunden, entgegentrat, konnte er nur unter Schwierigkeiten sein Verhältnis zu dem Christentum ausbilden. Goethe hat das Fortwirken der von ihm abgelehnten Strömung des Platonismus in der christlichen Gedankenentwicklung nicht im einzelnen verfolgt, aber er hat den Niederschlag dieses Fortwirkens in den Denkungsarten empfunden, die ihm entgegentraten. Daher wirft auf die Gestaltung seiner Vorstellungsart Licht eine Betrachtung, welche das Zustandekommen dieses Niederschlages in den Gedankenrichtungen verfolgt, welche sich durch die Jahrhunderte vor dem Auftreten Goethes ausgebildet haben. Die christliche Gedankenentwicklung war in vielen ihrer Vertreter bestrebt, sich auseinanderzusetzen mit dem Jenseitsglauben und mit dem Werte, den das Sinnesdasein hat gegenüber der geistigen Welt. Gab man sich der Anschauung hin, daß das Verhältnis der Sinneswelt zur Ideenwelt eine von dem Menschen abgesonderte Bedeutung hat, so kam man mit der daraus entstehenden Frage in die Anschauung der göttlichen Weltordnung hinein. Und Kirchenväter, an welche diese Frage herantrat, mußten sich Gedanken darüber machen, welche Rolle die platonische Ideenwelt innerhalb dieser göttlichen Weltordnung spielt. Damit stand man vor der Gefahr, dasjenige, was im menschlichen Erkennen durch unmittelbares Anschauen sich verbindet: Idee und Sinneswelt nicht nur für sich außer dem Menschen gesondert zu denken, sondern sie auseinander zu sondern, daß die Ideen außerhalb dessen, was dem Menschen als Natur gegeben ist, auch noch in einer von der Natur abgesonderten Geistigkeit für sich ein Dasein führen. Verband man diese Vorstellung, die auf einer unwahren Anschauung von Ideenwelt und Sinnenwelt beruhte mit der berechtigten Ansicht, daß das Göttliche nie in der Menschenseele vollbewußt anwesend sein kann, so er gab sich ein völliges Auseinanderreißen von Ideenwelt und Natur. Dann wird, was immer im menschlichen Geiste gesucht werden sollte, außerhalb desselben in der Schöpfung gesucht. In dem göttlichen Geist werden die Urbilder aller Dinge enthalten gedacht. Die Welt wird der unvollkommene Abglanz der in Gott ruhenden vollkommenen Ideenwelt. Es wird dann in Folge einer einseitigen Auffassung des Platonismus die Menschenseele von dem Verhältnis zwischen Idee und «Wirklichkeit» getrennt. Sie dehnt ihr berechtigt gedachtes Verhältnis zur göttlichen Weltordnung aus auf das Verhältnis, das in ihr lebt zwischen Ideenwelt und Sinnes-Scheinwelt. Augustinus kommt durch solche Vorstellungsart zu Ansichten wie diese: «Ohne jedes Schwanken wollen wir glauben, daß die denkende Seele nicht wesensgleich sei mit Gott, denn dieser gestattet keine Gemeinschaft, daß aber die Seele erleuchtet werden könne durch Teilnahme an der Gottesnatur.» Auf diese Art wird der Menschenseele dann, wenn diese Vorstellungsart einseitig übertrieben wird, die Möglichkeit entzogen, in der Naturbetrachtung die Ideenwelt als Wesen der Wirklichkeit mitzuerleben. Und es wird solches Miterleben als unchristlich gedeutet. Über das Christentum selbst wird die einseitige Anschauung des Platonismus gebreitet. Der Platonismus als philosophische Weltanschauung hält sich mehr im Elemente des Denkens; das religiöse Empfinden taucht das Denken in das Gefühlsleben und befestigt es auf diese Art in der Menschennatur. So im Menschenseelenleben verankert konnte das Ungesunde des einseitigen Platonismus in der abendländischen Gedankenentwicklung tiefere Bedeutung gewinnen, als wenn es bloß Philosophie geblieben wäre. Durch Jahrhunderte stand diese Gedankenentwicklung vor Fragen wie diese: wie steht, was der Mensch als Idee ausbildet, zu den Dingen der Wirklichkeit? Sind die in der Menschenseele durch die Ideenwelt lebenden Begriffe nur Vorstellungen, Namen, die mit der Wirklichkeit nichts zu tun haben? Sind sie selbst etwas Wirkliches, das der Mensch empfängt, indem er die Wirklichkeit wahrnimmt und durch seinen Verstand begreift? Solche Fragen sind für die Goethesche Weltanschauung keine Verstandesfragen über irgend etwas, das außerhalb der menschlichen Wesenheit liegt. Im menschlichen Anschauen der Wirklichkeit lösen sich diese Fragen in immerwährender Lebendigkeit durch das wahre menschliche Erkennen. Und diese Goethesche Weltanschauung muß nicht nur finden, daß in den christlichen Gedanken der Niederschlag eines einseitigen Platonismus lebt, sondern sie empfindet sich selbst dem echten Christentum entfremdet, wenn dieses von solchem Platonismus getränkt, ihr entgegentritt. - Was in vielen Gedanken lebt, die Goethe in sich ausgebildet hat, um sich die Welt verständlich zu machen, das war Ablehnung der von ihm als ungesund empfundenen Strömung des Platonismus. Daß er daneben einen freien Sinn hatte für die platonische Erhebung der Menschenseele zur Ideenwelt, das wird durch manchen Ausspruch bezeugt, den er in dieser Richtung getan hat. Er fühlte in sich die Wirksamkeit der Ideenwirklichkeit, indem er in seiner Art der Natur betrachtend und forschend gegenübertrat; er fühlte, daß die Natur selbst in der Sprache der Ideen redet, wenn sich die Seele solcher Sprache erschließt. Aber er konnte nicht zugeben, daß man die Ideenwelt als Abgesondertes betrachtet, und sich dadurch die Möglichkeit schuf gegenüber einer Idee von dem Pflanzenwesen zu sagen: Das ist keine Erfahrung, das ist eine Idee. Da empfand er, daß sein geistiges Auge die Idee als Wirklichkeit schaute, wie das sinnliche Auge den physischen Teil des Pflanzenwesens sieht. So stellte sich in Goethes Weltanschauung die auf die Ideenwelt gehende Richtung des Platonismus in ihrer Reinheit her, und es wird in ihr die von der Wirklichkeit ablenkende Strömung desselben überwunden. Wegen dieser Gestaltung seiner Weltanschauung mußte Goethe auch ablehnen, was ihm sich als christliche Vorstellungen so gab, daß es ihm nur als umgewandelter einseitiger Platonismus erscheinen konnte. Und er mußte empfinden, daß in den Formen mancher Weltanschauung, die ihm entgegentraten und mit denen er sich auseinandersetzen wollte, es nicht gelungen sei, die christlich-platonische, nicht natur- und ideengemäße Ansicht über die Wirklichkeit innerhalb der abendländischen Bildung zu überwinden.
The Platonic worldview
[ 1 ] With his own admirable boldness, Plato expresses this mistrust in experience: The things of this world, which our senses perceive, have no true being at all: they always become, but never are. They have only a relative being, are altogether only in and through their relation to one another; therefore one can just as well call their whole existence a non-being. They are consequently also not objects of actual knowledge. For there can only be such knowledge of that which is in and of itself and always in the same way; they, on the other hand, are only the object of a perception induced by sensation. As long as we are limited only to their perception, we resemble men who sit so firmly bound in a dark cave that they could not turn their heads and see nothing but by the light of a fire burning behind them, on the wall opposite them, the shadow images of real things, which would pass between them and the fire, and even of each other, indeed each of themselves, just the shadows on that wall. But their wisdom would be to predict the order of those shadows learned from experience.
[ 2 ] The Platonic view tears the idea of the world as a whole apart into two parts, into the idea of an illusory world and into another of the world of ideas, to which alone true, eternal reality is supposed to correspond. "What alone can be called truly existing, because it always is, but never becomes, nor passes away: these are the ideal archetypes of those shadowy images, they are the eternal Ideas, the archetypes of all things. They have no multiplicity; for each is in its essence only one in that it is the archetype itself, whose afterimages or shadows are all individual, transient things of the same kind with the same name. Nor do they come into being or pass away; for they are truly existing, but never becoming, nor perishing like their vanishing afterimages. Of them alone, therefore, there is an actual knowledge, since the object of such a knowledge can only be that which is always and in every consideration, not that which is, but also again is not, depending on how one looks at it."
[ 3 ] The distinction between idea and perception is only justified when we speak of the way in which human cognition comes about. Man must allow things to speak to him in two ways. They tell him part of their essence voluntarily. He need only listen. This is the part of reality that is free of ideas. The other, however, he must elicit from them. He must set his thinking in motion, then his inner being will be filled with the ideas of things. Within the personality is the arena in which things also reveal their ideal inner being. There they express what remains eternally hidden from external perception. The essence of nature is expressed here. But it is only due to human organization that things must be recognized through the harmony of two tones. In nature there is an exciter which produces both sounds. The unbiased person listens to the harmony. He recognizes in the ideal language of his inner being the statements that things make to him. Only those who have lost their impartiality interpret things differently. He believes that the language of his inner self comes from a different realm than the language of external perception. Plato realized the importance for the human world view of the fact that the world reveals itself to man from two sides. From his insightful evaluation of this fact, he recognized that the world of the senses, considered on its own, cannot be attributed reality. Only when the world of ideas shines forth from the life of the soul and man can place the idea and sense observation before his mind as a unified experience of knowledge, does he have true reality before him. What sense observation has before it, without being illuminated by the light of ideas, is an illusory world. Seen in this way, Plato's insight also sheds light on Parmenides' view of the illusory character of sensory things. And it can be said that Plato's philosophy is one of the most sublime constructs of thought that has ever sprung from the mind of mankind. Platonism is the conviction that the goal of all striving for knowledge must be the appropriation of the ideas that support the world and form its foundation. Anyone who cannot awaken this conviction in himself does not understand the Platonic world view. - But insofar as Platonism has intervened in the development of Western thought, it also shows another side. Plato did not stop at emphasizing the insight that in human perception the sense world becomes an illusion if the light of the world of ideas is not thrown upon it, but by his presentation of this fact he encouraged the opinion that the sense world in itself, apart from man, is an illusory world and that true reality can only be found in the ideas. This opinion gives rise to the question: how do ideas and the world of the senses (nature) come together outside of man? For those who cannot recognize an idea-free sense world outside of man, the question of the relationship between idea and sense world is one that must be sought and solved within the human being. And so the matter stands before Goethe's world view. For it, the question: "What relationship exists outside of man between the idea and the sense world?" is an unhealthy one, because for it there is no sense world (nature) without the idea outside of man. Only man can separate the idea from the sensory world for himself and thus imagine nature without an idea. Therefore one can say: for Goethe's world view, the question: "How do ideas and sensory things come together?", which has occupied the development of Western thought for centuries, is a completely superfluous question. And the precipitation of this current of Platonism running through the development of Western thought, which Goethe confronted, for example, in the above-mentioned conversation with Schiller, but also in other cases, had the effect on his sensibility of an unhealthy element of human imagination. What he did not express clearly in words, but what lived in his perception and became a co-forming impulse of his own world view, is the view: what healthy human perception teaches at every moment: how the language of perception and thought combine to reveal the full reality, that was ignored by the brooding thinkers. Instead of looking at how nature speaks to man, they formed artificial concepts about the relationship between the world of ideas and experience. In order to fully comprehend the profound significance of this school of thought, which Goethe felt to be unhealthy, in the worldviews that he encountered and which he wanted to orientate himself towards, one must consider how the implied current of Platonism, which evaporates the world of the senses into appearance and thereby brings the world of ideas into a skewed relationship with it, has been reinforced by a one-sided philosophical grasp of Christian truth in the course of the development of Western thought. Because Goethe was confronted with the Christian view, which he felt to be connected with the unhealthy current of Platonism, he was only able to develop his relationship to Christianity with difficulty. Goethe did not follow in detail the continued influence of the current of Platonism, which he rejected, in the development of Christian thought, but he felt the impact of this continued influence in the ways of thinking that he encountered. Therefore, an examination of the development of his way of thinking sheds light on the formation of this precipitation in the schools of thought that had developed over the centuries before Goethe's appearance. Many of the representatives of Christian thought endeavored to come to terms with the belief in the afterlife and with the value of sensory existence in relation to the spiritual world. If the view was accepted that the relationship between the world of senses and the world of ideas has a significance separate from that of man, the resulting question led to the view of the divine world order. And church fathers who were confronted with this question had to think about the role of the Platonic world of ideas within this divine world order. They were thus faced with the danger of combining that which is connected in human cognition through direct observation: Not only to think of ideas and the world of senses as separate for themselves apart from man, but to separate them from each other, that the ideas, outside of what is given to man as nature, also have an existence for themselves in a spirituality separate from nature. If this idea, which was based on an untrue view of the world of ideas and the world of the senses, were combined with the justified view that the divine can never be fully consciously present in the human soul, a complete separation of the world of ideas and nature would result. Then whatever should be sought in the human spirit is sought outside it in creation. The archetypes of all things are thought to be contained in the divine spirit. The world becomes the imperfect reflection of the perfect world of ideas resting in God. As a result of a one-sided view of Platonism, the human soul is then separated from the relationship between idea and "reality". It extends its justifiably conceived relationship to the divine world order to the relationship that exists within it between the world of ideas and the world of sensory appearances. Augustine arrives at views such as these through this kind of conception: "Without any wavering we want to believe that the thinking soul is not of the same essence as God, for the latter does not permit communion, but that the soul can be enlightened through participation in the nature of God." In this way, if this way of thinking is exaggerated one-sidedly, the human soul is deprived of the possibility of experiencing the world of ideas as the essence of reality in the contemplation of nature. And such co-experience is interpreted as unchristian. The one-sided view of Platonism is spread over Christianity itself. Platonism, as a philosophical world view, remains more in the element of thought; religious feeling immerses thought in the emotional life and in this way anchors it in human nature. Thus anchored in the life of the human soul, the unhealthiness of one-sided Platonism could gain deeper meaning in the development of Western thought than if it had remained mere philosophy. For centuries, this development of thought was faced with questions such as: how does what man forms as an idea relate to the things of reality? Are the concepts that live in the human soul through the world of ideas just ideas, names that have nothing to do with reality? Are they themselves something real that man receives by perceiving reality and comprehending it through his intellect? For Goethe's view of the world, such questions are not intellectual questions about anything that lies outside the human being. In the human contemplation of reality, these questions are resolved in perpetual vitality through true human cognition. And this Goethean view of the world must not only find that in Christian thought lives the precipitate of a one-sided Platonism, but it feels itself alienated from genuine Christianity when the latter, soaked in such Platonism, confronts it. - What lives in many of the thoughts that Goethe formed within himself in order to make the world comprehensible to himself was a rejection of the current of Platonism, which he felt to be unhealthy. That he also had an open mind for the Platonic elevation of the human soul to the world of ideas is attested to by many a statement he made in this direction. He felt within himself the efficacy of the reality of ideas, as he approached nature in his way of contemplation and research; he felt that nature itself speaks in the language of ideas when the soul opens itself up to such language. But he could not admit that the world of ideas was regarded as something separate, and that this made it possible for him to say to an idea of a plant being: "This is not an experience, this is an idea. Then he felt that his spiritual eye saw the idea as reality, just as the sensual eye sees the physical part of the plant being. Thus in Goethe's view of the world the direction of Platonism towards the world of ideas was established in its purity, and in it the current of Platonism that distracts from reality is overcome. Because of this shaping of his world view, Goethe also had to reject what presented itself to him as Christian ideas in such a way that it could only appear to him as transformed one-sided Platonism. And he had to feel that in the forms of some worldviews that confronted him and with which he wanted to come to terms, he had not succeeded in overcoming the Christian-Platonic view of reality within Western education, which was not in keeping with nature and ideas.