The Science of Knowing
GA 2
XXI. The Activity of Knowing and Artistic Creativity
[ 1 ] Our epistemology has divested human knowing of the merely passive character often attributed to it and has grasped it as an activity of the human spirit. One usually believes that the content of science is taken up from outside; it is believed, in fact, that the more man's spirit refrains from any participation of its own in what is taken up, the more one will be able to maintain a high level of objectivity in science. Our considerations have shown that the true content of science is not at all the perceived outer material but rather the idea grasped in the spirit, which leads us deeper into the working of the world than all dissection and observation of the outer world as mere experience. The idea is the content of science. In contrast to perception, which is taken up passively, science is therefore a product of the activity of the human spirit.
[ 2 ] With this we have brought knowing activity nearer to artistic creativity, which is also a productive, human activity. At the same time we have introduced the necessity of clarifying their mutual interrelationship.
[ 3 ] Both knowing and artistic activity are based upon the fact that the human being lifts himself from reality as product to reality as producer; that he ascends from the created to the creating, from chance happening to necessity. Because outer reality always shows us only a creation of creative nature, we lift ourselves in spirit to the unity of nature that manifests to us as the creator. Each object of reality presents us with one of the endless possibilities lying hidden in the womb of creative nature. Our spirit lifts itself to the contemplation of that source in which all these possibilities are contained. Now science and art are the objects into which the human being impresses what this contemplation offers him. In science this occurs only in the form of the idea, which means in a directly spiritual medium; in art it occurs in an object that is sense-perceptibly or spiritually perceivable. In science nature manifests in a purely ideal way as “that which encompasses everything individual”; in art an object of the outer world appears as depicting that which encompasses everything individual. That infinite element, which science seeks within the finite and seeks to present in the idea, is what art impresses into some medium taken from the real world. That which appears in science as idea is an image in art. The same infinite element is the object of both science and art, only it appears differently in one than in the other. The manner of presentation is different. Goethe therefore criticized the fact that one spoke of the idea of the beautiful as though the beautiful were not simply the sense-perceptible reflection of the idea.
[ 4 ] Here we can see how the true artist must draw directly from the primal source of all existence, how he impresses into his works the necessity which, in science, we seek ideally in nature and spirit. Science seeks out the lawfulness in nature; art no less so, only it implants this lawfulness in addition into raw substance. A product of art is no less nature than a product of nature, only the lawfulness of nature has already been poured into the product of art in the way this lawfulness appeared to the human spirit. The great works of art that Goethe saw in Italy appeared to him as the direct copy of the necessity that man becomes aware of in nature. For him art is therefore also a manifestation of the secret laws of nature.
[ 5 ] In a work of art everything depends upon the degree to which the artist has implanted the idea into his medium. The main thing is not what his subject is but rather how he handles it. If in science the externally perceived substance has to disappear completely so that only its essential being, the idea, remains, so in the product of art this substance has to remain—but the artistic treatment has to overcome completely anything about it of a particularized or chance nature. The object must be lifted entirely out of the sphere of chance and transferred into that of necessity. Nothing must remain in the artistically beautiful upon which the artist has not impressed his spirit. The what must be conquered by the how.
[ 6 ] The overcoming of the sense-perceptible by the spirit is the goal of art and science. Science overcomes the sense perceptible by dissolving it entirely into spirit; art does so by implanting spirit into the sense-perceptible. A statement of Goethe, which expresses these truths in a comprehensive way, may serve to bring our considerations to a close: “I think one could call science the knowledge of the general, abstracted knowledge; art, on the other hand, would be science turned into deed; science would be reason, and art its mechanism; therefore one could also call it practical science. And so, finally, science would be the theorem, art the problem.”
21. Erkennen und künstlerisches Schaffen
[ 1 ] Unsere Erkenntnistheorie hat das Erkennen des bloß passiven Charakters, den man ihm oft beilegt, entkleidet und es als Tätigkeit des menschlichen Geistes aufgefaßt. Gewöhnlich glaubt man, der Inhalt der Wissenschaft sei ein von außen aufgenommener; ja man meint, der Wissenschaft die Objektivität in einem um so höheren Grad wahren zu können, als sich der Geist jeder eigenen Zutat zu dem aufgefaßten Stoff enthält. Unsere Ausführungen haben gezeigt, daß der wahre Inhalt der Wissenschaft überhaupt nicht der wahrgenommene äußere Stoff ist, sondern die im Geiste erfaßte Idee, welche uns tiefer in das Weltgetriebe einführt, als alles Zerlegen und Beobachten der Außenwelt als bloßer Erfahrung. Die Idee ist Inhalt der Wissenschaft. Gegenüber der passiv aufgenommenen Wahrnehmung ist die Wissenschaft somit ein Produkt der Tätigkeit des menschlichen Geistes.
[ 2 ] Damit haben wir das Erkennen dem künstlerischen Schaffen genähert, das ja auch ein tätiges Hervorbringen des Menschen ist. Zugleich haben wir aber auch die Notwendigkeit herbeigeführt, die gegenseitige Beziehung beider klarzustellen.
[ 3 ] Sowohl die erkennende wie die künstlerische Tätigkeit beruhen darauf, daß der Mensch von der Wirklichkeit als Produkt sich zu ihr als Produzenten erhebt; daß er von dem Geschaffenen zum Schaffen, von der Zufälligkeit zur Notwendigkeit aufsteigt. Indem uns die äußere Wirklichkeit stets nur ein Geschöpf der schaffenden Natur zeigt, erheben wir uns im Geiste zu der Natureinheit, die uns als die Schöpferin erscheint. Jeder Gegenstand der Wirklichkeit stellt uns eine von den unendlichen Möglichkeiten dar, die im Schoße der schaffenden Natur verborgen liegen. Unser Geist erhebt sich zur Anschauung jenes Quelles, in dem alle diese Möglichkeiten enthalten sind. Wissenschaft und Kunst sind nun die Objekte, denen der Mensch einprägt, was ihm diese Anschauung bietet. In der Wissenschaft geschieht es nur in der Form der Idee, das heißt in dem unmittelbar geistigen Medium; in der Kunst in einem sinnenfällig oder geistig wahrnehmbaren Objekte. In der Wissenschaft erscheint die Natur als «das alles Einzelne Umfassende» rein ideell; in der Kunst erscheint ein Objekt der Außenwelt dieses Umfassende darstellend. Das Unendliche, das die Wissenschaft im Endlichen sucht und in der Idee darzustellen sucht, prägt die Kunst einem aus der Seinswelt genommenen Stoffe ein. Was in der Wissenschaft als Idee erscheint, ist in der Kunst Bild. Es ist dasselbe Unendliche, das Gegenstand der Wissenschaft wie der Kunst ist, nur daß es dort anders als hier erscheint. Die Art der Darstellung ist eine verschiedene. Goethe tadelte es daher, daß man von einer Idee des Schönen spricht, als ob das Schöne nicht einfach der sinnliche Abglanz der Idee wäre.
[ 4 ] Hier zeigt sich, wie der wahre Künstler unmittelbar aus dem Urquell alles Seins schöpfen muß, wie er seinen Werken das Notwendige einprägt, das wir ideell in Natur und Geist in der Wissenschaft suchen. Die Wissenschaft lauscht der Natur ihre Gesetzlichkeit ab; die Kunst nicht minder, nur daß sie die letztere noch dem rohen Stoffe einpflanzt. Ein Kunstprodukt ist nicht minder Natur als ein Naturprodukt, nur daß ihm die Naturgesetzlichkeit schon so eingegossen wurde, wie sie dem Menschengeist erschienen ist. Die großen Kunstwerke, die Goethe in Italien sah, erschienen ihm als der unmittelbare Abdruck des Notwendigen, das der Mensch in der Natur gewahr wird. Ihm ist daher auch die Kunst eine Manifestation geheimer Naturgesetze.
[ 5 ] Alles kommt beim Kunstwerke darauf an, inwiefern der Künstler dem Stoffe die Idee eingepflanzt hat. Nicht was er behandelt, sondern wie er es behandelt, darauf kommt es an. Hat in der Wissenschaft der von außen wahrgenommene Stoff völlig unterzutauchen, so daß nur sein Wesen, die Idee zurückbleibt, so hat er in dem Kunstprodukte zu verbleiben, nur daß seine Eigentümlichkeit, seine Zufälligkeit vollkommen durch die künstlerische Behandlung zu überwinden ist. Das Objekt muß ganz aus der Sphäre des Zufälligen herausgehoben und in jene des Notwendigen versetzt werden. Es darf im Kunstschönen nichts zurückbleiben, dem nicht der Künstler seinen Geist aufgedrückt hätte. Das Was muß durch das Wie besiegt werden.
[ 6 ] Überwindung der Sinnlichkeit durch den Geist ist das Ziel von Kunst und Wissenschaft. Diese überwindet die Sinnlichkeit, indem sie sie ganz in Geist auflöst; jene, indem sie ihr den Geist einpflanzt. Die Wissenschaft blickt durch die Sinnlichkeit auf die Idee, die Kunst erblickt die Idee in der Sinnlichkeit. Ein diese Wahrheiten in umfassender Weise ausdrückender Satz Goethes mag unsere Betrachtungen abschließen: «Ich denke, Wissenschaft könnte man die Kenntnis des Allgemeinen nennen, das abgezogene Wissen; Kunst dagegen wäre Wissenschaft zur Tat verwendet; Wissenschaft wäre Vernunft, und Kunst ihr Mechanismus, deshalb man sie auch praktische Wissenschaft nennen könnte. Und so wäre denn endlich Wissenschaft das Theorem, Kunst das Problem.»
21 Cognition and artistic creation
[ 1 ] Our theory of knowledge has stripped cognition of the merely passive character that is often ascribed to it and conceived of it as an activity of the human mind. It is usually believed that the content of science is one that is taken in from outside; indeed, it is thought that science can retain its objectivity to an even greater degree if the mind refrains from adding anything of its own to the perceived material. Our explanations have shown that the true content of science is not the perceived external substance at all, but the idea grasped in the mind, which introduces us more deeply into the workings of the world than all dissection and observation of the external world as mere experience. The idea is the content of science. In contrast to passively received perception, science is thus a product of the activity of the human mind.
[ 2 ] Thus, we have brought cognition closer to artistic creation, which is also an active production of the human being. At the same time, however, we have also brought about the necessity of clarifying the mutual relationship between the two.
[ 3 ] Both cognitive and artistic activity are based on the fact that man rises from reality as a product to it as a producer; that he ascends from the created to creation, from contingency to necessity. In that external reality always shows us only a creature of creative nature, we rise in spirit to the unity of nature, which appears to us as the creator. Every object of reality represents to us one of the infinite possibilities that lie hidden in the bosom of creative nature. Our spirit rises to the contemplation of that source in which all these possibilities are contained. Science and art are now the objects on which man impresses what this contemplation offers him. In science, this occurs only in the form of the idea, that is, in the directly intellectual medium; in art, in a sensually or intellectually perceptible object. In science, nature appears purely ideal as "that which encompasses everything individual"; in art, an object of the external world appears representing this encompassing. The infinite, which science seeks in the finite and seeks to represent in the idea, is imprinted by art on a substance taken from the world of being. What appears as an idea in science is an image in art. It is the same infinite that is the object of science as of art, only that it appears differently there than here. The manner of representation is different. Goethe therefore rebuked the fact that one speaks of an idea of beauty, as if beauty were not simply the sensual reflection of the idea.
[ 4 ] This shows how the true artist must draw directly from the primal source of all being, how he imprints on his works that which is necessary, which we seek ideally in nature and spirit in science. Science eavesdrops on the laws of nature; art no less, except that it implants the latter into the raw material. A product of art is no less nature than a product of nature, except that the laws of nature have already been poured into it as they appeared to the human spirit. The great works of art that Goethe saw in Italy appeared to him as the direct imprint of the necessary that man perceives in nature. For him, art is therefore also a manifestation of secret natural laws.
[ 5 ] In a work of art, everything depends on the extent to which the artist has implanted the idea into the material. It is not what he treats, but how he treats it that matters. If in science the substance perceived from outside has to be completely submerged, so that only its essence, the idea remains, it must remain in the artistic product, except that its peculiarity, its contingency is to be completely overcome by the artistic treatment. The object must be lifted entirely out of the sphere of the accidental and placed in that of the necessary. Nothing must remain in the beauty of art on which the artist has not imprinted his spirit. The what must be conquered by the how.
[ 6 ] Overcoming sensuality through the spirit is the goal of art and science. The latter overcomes sensuality by dissolving it completely into spirit; the latter by implanting spirit into it. Science looks through the sensuality to the idea, art sees the idea in the sensuality. A sentence by Goethe that expresses these truths in a comprehensive manner may conclude our considerations: "I think science could be called the knowledge of the general, the deduced knowledge; art, on the other hand, would be science applied to action; science would be reason, and art its mechanism, which is why it could also be called practical science. And so, finally, science would be the theorem, art the problem."