Goethe's Morphology: Urphänomene and Aesthetic Appraisal [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of the History of Biology 35 (2):291 - 328 (2002)
This paper examines the relationships between Goethe's morphology and his ideas on aesthetic appraisal. Goethe's science of morphology was to provide the method for making evident pure phenomena [Urphänomene], for making intuitable the necessary laws behind the perceptible forms and formation of living nature, through a disciplined perception. This emphasis contrasted with contemporary studies of generation, which focused upon hidden formative processes. It was his views on aesthetic appraisal that informed these epistemological precepts of his science. His study of antique artefacts convinced Goethe that these should be prototypes for all art, since they made perceptible the ideal of art, its archetypes or objective forms. His ambition was to eliminate the subjective elements he contended were leading contemporary art astray. He argued that the techniques he developed for cultivating the perception of the ideal exemplars of art could become a model for science, enabling the intuition of the objective forms of nature through a similar disciplined and cultivated perception. This paper also examines some of the wider motivations for the particular emphases Goethe gave to his science and aesthetics, noting a similar impulse to discipline unruly forces in his life -- in his work as an administrator for the Weimar court and Jena University, in his vision of an ideal German culture centred on the aristocracy, and in his literary productions and biographical writings. Finally it discusses the extent to which those unruly elements nevertheless remained a potent and disturbing presence in his understanding of nature, his art and his life.
|Keywords||aesthetic appraisal disciplined perception Goethe morphology objectivity pure phenomena symbolic plant|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Mark F. Riegner (2013). Ancestor of the New Archetypal Biology: Goethe's Dynamic Typology as a Model for Contemporary Evolutionary Developmental Biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (4):735-744.
Similar books and articles
Hjalmar Hegge (1972). Theory of Science in the Light of Goethe's Science of Nature. Inquiry 15 (1-4):363 – 386.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1996). Goethe on Science: A Selection of Goethe's Writings. Floris Books.
Philippe Hunean (2006). Naturalising Purpose: From Comparative Anatomy to the 'Adventure of Reason'. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 37 (4):649-674.
Robert J. Richards, Nature is the Poetry of Mind, or How Schelling Solved Goethe's Kantian Problems.
Emily Brady (2007). Aesthetic Regard for Nature in Environmental and Land Art. Ethics, Place and Environment 10 (3):287 – 300.
Stephen H. Watson (2004). Gadamer, Aesthetic Modernism, and the Rehabilitation of Allegory: The Relevance of Paul Klee. Research in Phenomenology 34 (1):45-72.
Dalia Nassar (2010). From a Philosophy of Self to a Philosophy of Nature: Goethe and the Development of Schelling's Naturphilosophie. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 92 (3):304-321.
Joan Steigerwald (2003). Robert J. Richards,The Romantic Conception of Life: Science and Philosophy in the Age of Goethe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002; Astrida Orle Tantillo,The Will to Create: Goethe's Philosophy of Nature. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2002. [REVIEW] Metascience 12 (3):305-311.
Nicolae Râmbu (2012). The Demonism of Creation in Goethe's Philosophy. Trans/Form/Ação 35 (3):67-80.
Myles W. Jackson (2008). Putting the Subject Back Into Color: Accessibility in Goethe's Zur Farbenlehre. Perspectives on Science 16 (4):pp. 378-391.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1990). The Art of Seeing: An Interpretation of the Aesthetic Encounter. Getty Center for Education in the Arts.
Y. Saito (2010). Everyday Aesthetics. Oxford University Press.
Kenneth R. Westphal (1997). ‘Hegel, Formalism, and Robert Turner’s Ceramic Art’. Jahrbuch für Hegelforschung 3:259–283.
A. L. Cothey (1990). The Nature of Art. Routledge.
David Seamon & Arthur Zajonc (eds.) (1998). Goethe's Way of Science: A Phenomenology of Nature. State University of New York Press.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads11 ( #130,170 of 1,096,520 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #47,418 of 1,096,520 )
How can I increase my downloads?