Goethe's World View
GA 6
Epilogue to the New Edition of 1918
[ 1 ] It was said by critics of this book immediately after its publication that it does not give a picture of Goethe's “world view” but only of his “view of nature.” I do not think that this judgment comes from a justified point of view, even though, looked at externally, the book deals almost exclusively with Goethe's ideas about nature. For I believe that in the course of what has been said I have shown that these ideas about nature rest upon a quite definite way of looking at the phenomena of the world. And in my opinion I have indicated in the book itself that taking a point of view toward the phenomena of nature such as Goethe had can lead to definite views about psychological, historical, and still wider phenomena of the world. What expresses itself in Goethe's view of nature about a particular area is, in fact, a world view, not a mere view of nature which a person could also have whose thoughts have no significance for a wider picture of the world. On the other hand, however, I believed I should not present anything in this book other than what can be said in direct connection with the realm which Goethe himself worked through out of the totality of his world view. To sketch the picture of the world which arises out of Goethe's literary works, out of his ideas on an history, etc. is of course altogether possible and certainly of the greatest possible interest. A person who is attentive to the stance of this book will not, however, seek in it any such world picture. Such a person will recognize that I set myself the task of resketching that pan of the Goethean world picture for which in his own writings there are statements which emerge in an unbroken sequence from each other. I have indeed also indicated in many places the points at which Goethe got stuck in this unbroken development of his world picture, but which,he did successfully achieve in certain realms of nature. Goethe's views about the world and life show themselves to the broadest extent. How these views emerge out of his own particular world view, however, is not observable in his works outside the area of natural phenomena in the same way that it is within this area. In these other areas what Goethe's soul had to manifest to the world becomes observable; in the area of his ideas about nature there becomes visible how the basic impulse of his spirit achieved, step by step, a world view up to a certain boundary. Precisely through the fact that one does not for once go further in sketching Goethe's thought-work than to present what developed within him as a conceptually cohesive part of a world view, light will be shed upon the particular coloration of what otherwise reveals itself in his life's work. Therefore I did not want to paint the picture of the world which speaks out of Goethe's life work as a whole but rather that part which comes to light with him in the form in which one brings a world view to expression in thought. Views which well up in a personality, however great that personality may be, are not yet parts of a world view picture which is cohesive in itself and which the personality himself conceives to be a coherent whole. But Goethe's nature ideas are just such a cohesive part of a world view picture. And, as illumination for natural phenomena, these ideas are not merely a view of nature but rather a part of a world view.
[ 2 ] The fact that I have also been reproached with respect to this book for changing my views after its publication does not surprise me since I am not unfamiliar with the presuppositions which move a person to make such judgments. I have expressed myself about this search for contradictions in my books in the preface to the first volume of my Riddles of Philosophy and in an article in the journal, Das Reich (“Spiritual Science as Anthroposophy and Contemporary Epistemology”). This kind of search is possible only for critics who completely fail to recognize how in fact my world view must proceed in order to grasp the different areas of life. I do not want to go into this question in a general way again here but rather will just briefly state a few things about this book on Goethe. I consider the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science which I have been presenting in my books for sixteen years to be a way of knowing the spiritual world content accessible to man; and a person who has enlivened within himself Goethe's ideas on nature as something right for him and, starting there, strives for experiences of knowledge about the spirit realm, must come to this way of knowing. I am of the view that this spiritual science presupposes a natural science which corresponds to the Goethean one. I not only mean by this that the spiritual science presented by me does not contradict this natural science. For I know how little it signifies for there to be only no logical contradiction between different assertions. In spite of this they could in reality be utterly incompatible. But rather I believe I have insight into the fact that Goethe's ideas about the realm of nature, if really experienced, must necessarily lead to the anthroposophical knowledge presented by me, if a person does something which Goethe did not yet do, which is to lead experiences in the realm of nature over into experiences in the realm of spirit. The nature of these latter experiences is described in my spiritual scientific works. This is the reason for also reprinting now, after the publication of my spiritual scientific books, the essential content of this present book, which I brought out for the first time in 1897, as my recapitulation of the Goethean world view. I consider all the thoughts presented in it to be still valid today, unchanged. I have only in individual places made changes which do not pertain to the configuration of thoughts but only to the style of individual expressions. And the fact that after twenty years one would want to make a few stylistic changes here and there in a book can, after all, seem comprehensible. Otherwise, what is different in the new edition from the previous one are only some expansions, not changes, of the content. I believe that a person who is seeking a natural scientific foundation for spiritual science can find it through Goethe's world view. Therefore it seems to me that a book about Goethe's world view can also be of significance for someone who wants to concern himself with anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. But the stance of my book is that it wants to consider Goethe's world view entirely for itself, without reference to actual spiritual science. (One will find in my book, Goethe's Faust and the Fairy Tale of the Green Snake, something of what there is to say about Goethe from the particularly spiritual scientific point of view.)
[ 3 ] Supplementary note: A critic of this book of mine on Goethe believed he had found a special trove of “contradictions,” when he placed what I say about Platonism in this book (in the first edition of 1897) beside a statement I made at almost exactly the same time in my introduction to volume four of Goethe's natural scientific writings (Kuerschner edition): “The philosophy of Plato is one of the most sublime edifices of thought that has ever sprung from the spirit of mankind. It is one of the saddest signs of our time that the Platonic way of looking at things is regarded in philosophy as the exact opposite of healthy reason.” It is indeed difficult for certain minds to grasp that each thing, when looked at from different sides, presents itself differently. It will be easy to see that my different statements about Platonism do not represent any real contradiction to anyone who does not get stuck at the mere sound of the words but who goes into the different relationships into which I had to bring Platonism, through its own being, at this or that time. It is on the one hand a sad sign when Platonism is regarded as going against healthy reason because only that is considered to be in accordance with reason which stays with mere sense perception as the sole reality. And it does go against a healthy view of idea and sense world to change Platonism in such a way that through it an unhealthy separation of idea and sense perception is brought about. Someone who cannot enter into this kind of thinking penetration of the phenomena of life remains, with what he grasps, always outside of reality. Someone—as Goethe expresses it—who plants a concept in the way in order to limit a rich life's content has no sense for the fact that life unfolds in relationships which work differently in different directions. It is more comfortable, to be sure, to set a schematic concept in the place of a view of the fullness of life; with such concepts one can indeed judge easily and schematically. But one lives, through such a process, in abstractions without being. Thus human concepts turn into abstractions, which one believes can be treated in the intellect in the same way that things treat each other. But these concepts are much more like pictures which one receives of a thing from different sides. The thing is one; the pictures are many. And it is not focusing on one picture that leads to a view of the thing but rather looking at several pictures together. Unfortunately I now had to see how strongly many critics are inclined to construct contradictions out of such a consideration of a phenomenon from different points of view, which strives to merge with reality. Because of this I felt moved, with respect to the passages on Platonism in this new edition, first of all to change the style of presentation and thus to make even more definite what seemed to me twenty years ago really to be clear enough in the context in which it stands; secondly, by directly placing the statement from my other book beside what is said in this book, to show how both statements stand in total harmony with each other. In doing so I have spared anyone who still has a taste for finding contradictions in such things the trouble of having to gather them from two books.
Nachwort zur Neuauflage 1918
[ 1 ] Von Beurteilern dieser Schrift wurde gleich nach ihrem Erscheinen gesagt, daß sie nicht ein Bild von Goethes «Weltanschauung», sondern nur von seiner «Naturanschauung» gebe. Ich bin nicht der Ansicht, daß dieses Urteil von einem berechtigten Gesichtspunkte aus gefällt ist, wenn auch, äußerlich betrachtet, in dem Buche fast ausschließlich von Goethes Naturideen die Rede ist. Denn ich glaube im Verlaufe meiner Ausführungen gezeigt zu haben, daß diese Naturideen auf einer ganz bestimmten Art, die Welterscheinungen anzusehen, beruhen. Und ich meine, durch die Schrift selbst, angedeutet zu haben, daß das Einnehmen eines Gesichtspunktes gegenüber den Naturerscheinungen, wie ihn Goethe gehabt hat, zu bestimmten Ansichten, über psychologische, historische und weitergehende Weltenerscheinungen führen kann. Was sich in Goethes Naturanschauung auf einem bestimmten Gebiete aus spricht, ist eben eine Weltanschauung, nicht eine bloße Naturanschauung, die auch eine Persönlichkeit haben könnte, deren Gedanken für ein weiteres Weltbild keine Bedeutung haben. Andrerseits aber glaubte ich in diesem Buche nichts anderes darstellen zu sollen, als was sich in unmittelbarem Anschlusse an das Gebiet sagen läßt, das Goethe selbst aus dem Gesamtumfange seiner Weltanschauung herausgearbeitet hat. Das Weltbild zu zeichnen, das sich in Goethes Dichtungen, in seinen kunstgeschichtlichen Ideen usw. offenbart, ist selbstverständlich durchaus möglich und zweifellos von dem allerhöchsten Interesse. Wer die Haltung der vorliegenden Schrift ins Auge faßt, wird in derselben ein solches Weltbild aber nicht suchen. Ein solcher wird erkennen, daß ich mir zur Aufgabe gemacht habe, denjenigen Teil des Goetheschen Weltbildes nachzuzeichnen, für den in seinen eigenen Schriften Ausführungen vorhanden sind, deren eine aus der anderen lückenlos hervorgeht. Ich habe ja auch an den verschiedensten Stellen angedeutet, wo die Punkte liegen, an denen Goethe steckengeblieben ist in dieser lückenlosen Herausarbeitung seines Weltbildes, die ihm für gewisse Naturgebiete gelungen ist. Goethes Ansichten über die Welt und das Leben offenbaren sich in weitestem Umfange. Das Hervorgehen dieser Ansichten aus seiner ihm ureigenen Weltanschauung ist aber aus seinen Werken über das Gebiet der Naturerscheinungen hinaus nicht in der gleichen Art anschaulich wie auf diesem Gebiete. Auf anderen Gebieten wird anschaulich, was Goethes Seele der Welt zu offenbaren hatte; auf dem Gebiete seiner Naturideen wird ersichtlich, wie der Grundzug seines Geistes eine Weltanschauung bis zu einer gewissen Grenze Schritt für Schritt sich erobert. Gerade dadurch, daß man in der Zeichnung von Goethes Gedankenarbeit einmal nicht weiter geht als in der Ausführung desjenigen liegt, was sich in ihm selbst zu einem gedanklich geschlossenen Stück Weltanschauung herausgebildet hat, wird man ein Licht gewinnen für die besondere Färbung dessen, was sich sonst in seinem Lebenswerk offenbart. Deshalb wollte ich nicht das Weltbild malen, das aus Goethes Lebenswerk im Ganzen spricht, sondern denjenigen Teil, der bei ihm selbst in der Form zu Tage tritt, in der man eine Weltanschauung gedanklich zum Ausdrucke bringt. Aus einer noch so großen Persönlichkeit hervorquellende Anschauungen sind noch nicht Teile eines in sich geschlossenen und von der Persönlichkeit selbst zusammenhängend gedachten Weltanschauungsbildes. Aber Goethes Naturideen sind ein solches in sich geschlossenes Stück eines Weltanschauungsbildes. Und sie sind als Beleuchtung von Naturerscheinungen nicht eine bloße Naturansicht, sondern das Glied einer Weltanschauung.
[ 2 ] Daß man mir auch angesichts dieses Buches vorgeworfen hat, meine Anschauungen haben sich seit dem Erscheinen desselben geändert, wundert mich nicht, da ich nicht unbekannt bin mit den Voraussetzungen, von denen man sich bei solchen Urteilen leiten läßt. Ich habe mich in der Vorrede zum ersten Bande meiner «Rätsel der Philosophie» und in einem Aufsatze in der Zeitschrift «Das Reich»(«Die Geisteswissenschaft als Anthroposophie und die zeitgenössische Erkenntnistheorie», 2. Jahrgang, 2. Buch des «Reiches») über dieses Suchen nach Widersprüchen in meinen Schriften ausgesprochen. Ein solches Suchen ist nur bei Beurteilern möglich, die völlig verkennen, wie gerade meine Weltanschauung sich verhalten muß, wenn sie verschiedene Gebiete des Lebens ins Auge fassen will. Ich will hier nicht im allgemeinen auf diese Frage noch einmal eingehen, sondern nur kurz einiges mit Bezug auf dieses Goethebuch bemerken. Ich selber sehe in der anthroposophisch orientierten Geisteswissenschaft, die ich in meinen Schriften seit 16 Jahren zur Darstellung bringe, diejenige Erkenntnisart für den dem Menschen zugänglichen geistigen Weltgehalt, zu welcher derjenige kommen muß, der die Goetheschen Naturideen als etwas ihm Gemäßes in seiner Seele belebt hat und von da ausgehend zu Erkennmiserlebnissen über das Geistgebiet der Welt strebt. Ich bin der Ansicht, daß diese Geisteswissenschaft eine Naturwissenschaft voraussetzt, die der Goetheschen entspricht. Nicht so nur meine ich das, daß die von mir zur Darstellung gebrachte Geisteswissenschaft dieser Naturwissenschaft nicht widerspricht. Denn ich weiß, daß es wenig besagen will, wenn zwischen verschiedenen Behauptungen nur kein logischer Widerspruch ist. Sie könnten deshalb doch in der Wirklichkeit durchaus unverträglich sein. Sondern ich glaube einzusehen, daß Goethes Ideen über das Naturgebiet, wirklich erlebt, zu den von mir dargelegten anthroposophischen Erkenntnissen notwendig führen müssen, wenn man, was Goethe noch nicht getan hat, die Erlebnisse im Naturgebiet überleitet zu Erlebnissen im Geistgebiet. Wie diese letzteren Erlebnisse geartet sind, das findet man in meinen geisteswissenschaftlichen Werken beschrieben. Aus diesem Grunde findet man den wesentlichen Inhalt des vorliegenden Buches, das ich 1897 zum ersten Male veröffentlicht habe, als meine Wiedergabe der Goetheschen Weltanschauung auch jetzt, nach der Veröffentlichung meiner geisteswissenschaftlichen Schriften, wieder abgedruckt. Alle darin dargestellten Gedanken gelten mir unverändert auch heute. Ich habe nur an einzelnen Stellen Änderungen angebracht, die sich nicht auf die Haltung der Gedanken, sondern nur auf Stilisierung einzelner Ausführungen erstrecken. Und daß man, nach zwanzig Jahren, bei einem Buche da oder dort einiges anders zu stilisieren wünscht, kann am Ende begreiflich erscheinen. Was sonst in der Neuauflage anders ist als in der vorigen sind einige Erweiterungen, nicht Änderungen des Inhalts. Ich bin der Meinung, daß wer einen naturwissenschaftlichen Unterbau für die Geisteswissenschaft sucht, ihn durch Goethes Weltanschauung finden kann. Deshalb scheint mir, daß eine Schrift über Goethes Weltanschauung auch dem von Bedeutung sein kann, der sich mit der anthroposophisch orientierten Geisteswissenschaft beschäftigen will. Meine Schrift ist aber so gehalten, daß sie Goethes Weltanschauung ganz für sich, ohne Bezug zur eigentlichen Geisteswissenschaft, betrachten will. (Einiges von dem, was von besonderem geisteswissenschaftlichen Gesichtspunkte über Goethe zu sagen ist, wird man in meiner Schrift über «Goethes Faust und das Märchen von der grünen Schlange» finden.)
[ 3 ] Nachträgliche Anmerkung: Ein Kritiker dieses meines Goethebuches (in den Kantstudien III, 1898) hat geglaubt, einen besonderen Fund in bezug auf meine «Widersprüche» zu machen, indem er, was ich in diesem Buche über den Platonismus sage (in der ersten Auflage 1897) zusammenstellt mit einem Ausspruche, dem ich fast ganz zur selben Zeit in meiner Einleitung zum 4. Band von Goethes naturwissenschaftlichen Schriften (Kürschnersche Ausgabe) getan habe: «Die Philosophie Platos ist eines der erhabensten Gedankengebäude, die je aus dem Geiste der Menschheit entsprungen sind. Es gehört zu den traurigsten Zeichen unserer Zeit, daß platonische Anschauungsweise in der Philosophie geradezu für das Gegenteil von gesunder Vernunft gilt.» Es wird gewissen Geistern eben schwer begreiflich, daß ein jeglich Ding von verschiedenen Seiten betrachtet, verschieden sich darstellt. Daß meine verschiedenen Aussprüche über den Platonismus keinen wirklichen Widerspruch darstellen, wird derjenige leicht einsehen, der nicht an die bloßen Wortklänge sich hält, sondern auf die verschiedenen Beziehungen eingeht, in die ich das eine und das andere Mal den Platonismus, durch seine eigene Wesenheit, bringen mußte. Es ist einerseits ein trauriges Zeichen, wenn man den Platonismus als der gesunden Vernunft widerstrebend ansieht, weil man dieser nur gemäß findet das Stehenbleiben bei der bloßen Sinnesanschauung als der einzigen Wirklichkeit. Und es ist auch einer gesunden Anschauung von Idee und Sinneswelt widerstrebend, wenn man den Platonismus so wendet, daß durch ihn eine ungesunde Trennung von Idee und Sinnesanschauung bewirkt wird. Wer auf eine solche Art gedanklicher Durchdringung der Erscheinungen des Lebens nicht eingehen kann, der bleibt, mit dem, was er begreift, immer außerhalb der Wirklichkeit stehen. Wer - um mit Goethe zu reden - einen Begriff hinpfahlt, um einen reichen Lebensinhalt zu begrenzen, der hat keinen Sinn dafür, daß sich das Leben in Beziehungen ausgestaltet, die nach den verschiedenen Richtungen hin verschieden wirken. Es ist allerdings bequemer, an die Stelle einer Ansicht des vollen Lebens einen schematischen Begriff zu setzen; man kann mit solchen Begriffen eben leicht schematisch urteilen. Man lebt aber durch einen solchen Vorgang in wesenlosen Abstraktionen. Die menschlichen Begriffe werden gerade dadurch zu solchen Abstraktionen, daß man meint, man könne sie im Verstande so behandeln, wie die Dinge einander behandeln. Aber diese Begriffe gleichen vielmehr Bildern, die man von verschiedenen Seiten her von einem Dinge aufnimmt. Das Ding ist eines; der Bilder sind viele. Und nicht die Einstellung auf ein Bild, sondern das Zusammenschauen mehrerer Bilder führt zu einer Anschauung des Dinges. Da ich nun leider sehen mußte, wie viel Neigung bei manchen Beurteilern vorhanden ist, aus einer solchen, nach Durchdringung mit der Wirklichkeit strebenden Betrachten einer Erscheinung unter verschiedenen Gesichtspunkten «Widersprüche» zu konstruieren, so fühlte ich mich veranlaßt, in dieser Neuauflage bei den Ausführungen über den Platonismus erstens durch eine etwas veränderte Stilisierung der in der ersten Auflage gegebenen Darstellung dasjenige noch besonders deutlich zu machen, was mir vor zwanzig Jahren wahrlich klar genug aus dem Zusammenhange, in dem er steht, zu sein schien; zweitens durch unmittelbares Setzen des Ausspruches aus meiner andern Schrift neben das, was in diesem Buche gesagt ist, zu zeigen, wie die beiden Aussprüche in vollem Einklang miteinander stehen. Wer nun aber doch den Geschmack hat, in solchen Dingen Widersprüche zu finden, dem habe ich dadurch die Mühe erspart, sie erst aus zwei Büchern zusammensuchen zu müssen.
Afterword to the new edition of 1918
[ 1 ] It was said by critics of this work immediately after its publication that it did not give a picture of Goethe's "Weltanschauung", but only of his "Naturanschauung". I am not of the opinion that this judgment was made from a justified point of view, even if, on the face of it, the book speaks almost exclusively of Goethe's ideas of nature. For I believe I have shown in the course of my remarks that these ideas of nature are based on a very particular way of looking at world phenomena. And I believe I have indicated, through the writing itself, that the adoption of a point of view towards natural phenomena, such as Goethe had, can lead to certain views on psychological, historical and further-reaching world phenomena. What is expressed in Goethe's view of nature in a certain area is precisely a world view, not a mere view of nature, which could also be held by a personality whose thoughts have no significance for a further world view. On the other hand, however, I did not believe that I should present in this book anything other than what can be said in direct connection with the area that Goethe himself worked out from the overall scope of his world view. It is, of course, quite possible and undoubtedly of the utmost interest to sketch the world view that reveals itself in Goethe's poetry, in his art-historical ideas, and so on. However, anyone who considers the attitude of the present work will not look for such a world view in it. Such a person will recognize that I have set myself the task of tracing that part of Goethe's view of the world for which there are explanations in his own writings, one of which emerges from the other without any gaps. I have also indicated at various points where Goethe got stuck in this complete elaboration of his world view, which he succeeded in doing for certain areas of nature. Goethe's views on the world and on life reveal themselves in the broadest sense. However, the emergence of these views from his very own world view is not as clear in his works beyond the field of natural phenomena as it is in this field. In other areas it becomes clear what Goethe's soul had to reveal to the world; in the area of his ideas of nature it becomes clear how the basic trait of his spirit conquers a world view step by step up to a certain limit. Precisely by going no further in the sketch of Goethe's work of thought than in the realization of that which has developed in him into a mentally closed piece of world view, one will gain a light for the special colouring of that which otherwise reveals itself in his life's work. That is why I did not want to paint the world view that speaks from Goethe's life's work as a whole, but rather that part of it that comes to light in him himself in the form in which a world view is mentally expressed. The views that emerge from a personality, however great, are not yet part of a self-contained and coherently conceived world view. But Goethe's ideas of nature are such a self-contained piece of a world view. And as an illumination of natural phenomena, they are not a mere view of nature, but the link of a world view.
[ 2 ] I am not surprised that I have been accused of having changed my views since the publication of this book, since I am not unfamiliar with the assumptions that guide such judgments. In the preface to the first volume of my "Rätsel der Philosophie" and in an essay in the journal "Das Reich" ("Die Geisteswissenschaft als Anthroposophie und die zeitgenössische Erkenntnistheorie", 2nd volume, 2nd book of "Das Reich") I have spoken out about this search for contradictions in my writings. Such a search is only possible with judges who completely misjudge how my world view must behave if it wants to take different areas of life into consideration. I will not go into this question again here in general, but only briefly comment on a few things with reference to this Goethe book. I myself see in the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science, which I have been presenting in my writings for 16 years, that kind of knowledge for the spiritual world content accessible to man to which he must come who has enlivened Goethe's ideas of nature in his soul as something corresponding to him and from there strives for cognitive experiences about the spiritual realm of the world. I am of the opinion that this spiritual science presupposes a natural science that corresponds to Goethe's. Not only do I mean that the spiritual science I present does not contradict this natural science. For I know that it says little if there is only no logical contradiction between different assertions. They could therefore be quite incompatible in reality. Rather, I believe I can see that Goethe's ideas about the realm of nature, really experienced, must necessarily lead to the anthroposophical insights I have outlined if, as Goethe has not yet done, the experiences in the realm of nature are transferred to experiences in the realm of spirit. The nature of these latter experiences is described in my spiritual scientific works. For this reason, the essential content of this book, which I published for the first time in 1897, has been reprinted as my rendition of Goethe's world view even now, after the publication of my writings on spiritual science. All the ideas presented in it are still valid for me today. I have only made changes in individual passages, which do not affect the attitude of the thoughts, but only the stylization of individual statements. And it is understandable that, after twenty years, one might wish to stylize a book differently here or there. What is otherwise different in the new edition from the previous one are a few additions, not changes to the content. I am of the opinion that anyone seeking a scientific foundation for spiritual science can find it in Goethe's world view. Therefore, it seems to me that a writing on Goethe's world view can also be of importance to those who want to deal with anthroposophically oriented spiritual science. My writing, however, is designed to consider Goethe's world view entirely on its own, without reference to spiritual science proper. (Some of what can be said about Goethe from the point of view of the humanities in particular can be found in my essay on "Goethe's Faust and the Fairy Tale of the Green Snake").
[ 3 ] Subsequent note: A critic of this book of mine on Goethe (in Kantstudien III, 1898) thought he had made a special discovery with regard to my "contradictions" by combining what I say about Platonism in this book (in the first edition of 1897) with a statement that I made at almost exactly the same time in my introduction to the 4th volume of Goethe's Natural Sciences. Volume 4 of Goethe's scientific writings (Kürschner's edition): "Plato's philosophy is one of the most sublime constructs of thought that ever arose from the spirit of mankind. It is one of the saddest signs of our time that the Platonic approach to philosophy is regarded as the very opposite of sound reason." It is difficult for certain minds to understand that every thing, viewed from different sides, presents itself differently. That my various statements about Platonism do not represent a real contradiction will be easily understood by those who do not adhere to the mere sounds of words, but who consider the various relations into which I had to bring Platonism, on the one hand and on the other, by its own nature. On the one hand, it is a sad sign if one regards Platonism as contrary to sound reason, because one finds it only in accordance with this reason to stand still with the mere view of the senses as the only reality. And it is also contrary to a healthy view of the idea and the sensory world if Platonism is applied in such a way that an unhealthy separation of idea and sensory view is brought about by it. He who cannot enter into this kind of intellectual penetration of the phenomena of life always remains, with what he comprehends, outside reality. He who - to use Goethe's phrase - piles up a concept in order to limit a rich content of life, has no sense of the fact that life takes shape in relationships that have different effects in different directions. It is, however, more convenient to substitute a schematic concept for a view of the fullness of life; it is easy to make schematic judgments with such concepts. But through such a process one lives in abstractions without essence. Human concepts become such abstractions precisely because one thinks that one can treat them in the mind in the same way as things treat each other. But these concepts are rather like images that one receives from different sides of a thing. The thing is one; the images are many. And it is not the focus on one image, but the combination of several images that leads to a view of the thing. Since I unfortunately had to see how much inclination there is among some judges to construct "contradictions" from such an observation of a phenomenon from different points of view, which strives for penetration with reality, I felt compelled in this new edition to make particularly clear in the explanations on Platonism, firstly, by a somewhat altered stylization of the presentation given in the first edition, that which seemed to me twenty years ago to be truly clear enough from the context in which it stands; secondly, to show how the two statements are in complete harmony with each other by placing the statement from my other work next to what is said in this book. But for those who have a taste for finding contradictions in such things, I have saved them the trouble of having to search for them in two books.