際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

The problem with the metamprphisis of plants

Rob Morien
Rob Morien

This document provides a summary of Goethe's science of botany and some of the problems it encounters. It discusses how Goethe believed observation was key to understanding nature, but that it was difficult to directly observe continuous processes like plant growth. The document also examines potential solutions to this problem, such as using advanced technology to observe growth without gaps or conceptualizing discrete space on the atomic level. It ultimately questions whether Goethe's arguments were convincing given the limitations of his time versus what modern science has revealed.

1 of 9
Download to read offline
The Problem (& Possible Solutions) of The Metamorphosis of Plants Robert Morien 990-41-5960 Philosophy 498 The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 12-17-06
The purpose of this paper is two-fold; first to provide a brief introduction to Goethean science, and second, to examine some of the problems his science encounters and possible solutions to these problems. Goethes contributions to botany and the earth sciences were strongly empirical. He had a firm belief that the way to truth in the world was through direct observation and empirical experience rather than through the imagination and introspection. It is through the powers of observation that we can come to know how the world is organized; from the magnitude of the universe down to the smallest size where everything becomes the same form; namely atoms and nuclei. This faculty also empowers us to realize the distinction between appearances and essences. He acquires his motivations from Kant; however, he disagrees with the boundaries Kant set on the intellectual intuition. Kant sees a fine line distinction between intellectual intuition and discursive understanding; where intellectual intuition originates or creates its object and discursive understanding receives its object through analytical reasoning. Furthermore, Kant thought that we are limited in our understanding since we are only capable of utilizing the faculty of discursive understanding, whereas only god is capable of attaining the powers of intellectual intuition. This fine line separation is what separates us from god.
Goethe, on the other hand thought that we are capable of bridging the gap between intellectual intuition and discursive understanding, and this is done through consciousness. Consciousness is what supplies the unity between appearances and essences and what is ultimately the tool which allows us to discover the Archetype, or gauge, from which to judge all the other plants from. But already there is a problem, since as stated above, Goethe was strictly empirical and did not think that we can come to know or even try to come to know the architecture of the universe though cognition as can be illustrated by one of his famous proclamations: Dont think, look, so that your imagination does not get in the way of your observations and obscure the very things you have discovered in the first place. He wanted to ensure that the thoughts one compose, absolutely conform to the pre-existence of nature, thus his requirement for direct, verifiable empirical observations. There is also a mechanistic problem to Goethes assessment as to how we can come to know the essence of a plant. Decomposition of inanimate objects allows one to discover the working pieces that provide the means of motion or other physical activities that the object is expected to perform. For example, an automobile is composed of an engine, transmission, axels,
and wheels that provide the means for transportation to various destinations. The mechanic or engineer is properly trained in taking apart these various components to troubleshoot or discover their inner workings. Likewise, dissection allows the biologist to examine the many working parts that allow for the mobility of the numerous types of animal forms in the universe. Unlike the inanimate objects, however, the natural scientist is not capable of piecing back together a living creature because there is a life- force, a characteristic property of living beings capable of mental or physical activities, that no human is capable of producing from mere will. Thus, there seems to be a contradiction to Goethes claim that humans are capable of obtaining and employing the intellectual intuition, since here is an example where his argument does not hold. Through Goethes Botanical Writings, Goethe provides empirical observations in his investigations of plant life where he provides numerous detailed sketches of the metamorphosis of plant life; i.e. infancy to the adult stage as well as detailed documentation that describes each of his sketches and discoveries. He does this in pursuit of finding the Archetypal plant form which to gauge all other plants for conformity or deviation.
He further asserts that any activity that is performed in nature is connected to the whole or an underlining unity that exists between all objects and creatures. He observes another problem, however. Plant life seems to be a continuous process; there does not appear to be any gaps during the progression of growth in animate creatures. Observation alone, however, is incapable of allowing humans to witness this phenomenon without interruption. One can argue that you can utilize a femto-second camera, a laser-triggered streak camera for the measurement of ultra-short events on the femto-second time scale. And if you speed this device up just enough so as to make growth appear continuous you can rectify the problem of observational inadequacies. Regardless of any technological device that aids in optical enhancement, there will still be 1 x 10 15 seconds per frame, or however short you please; and still there will exist discrete gaps, and will not be exactly continuous. What is it then that if we cannot actually see metamorphosis, gives us our experience of wholeness or unity as Goethe claims exists in nature? Is not continuity the very idea of an underlining unity between objects? He escapes this perplexing dilemma by making the following argument:
Ordinary perception is a connection of discrete parts. The minds eye is capable of observing continuity, or animation of extremely slow processes through visualizations, etc. Therefore, we can see the connection of these discrete parts (metamorphosis) through the minds eye. It is then through this visualization that one is able to discover the plants Archetype, and hence an ultimate truth to concepts such as the organization of the world, and the solution to the question, why does nature seem to have a pre-determined path it follows throughout the course of its existence? Why is it that you would never find a monkey being a lion? At first glance, this does not seem as though his argument is watertight and would not hold under the intense scrutiny of philosophers such as the skeptics. There are several counterexamples one can think of that would not allow this argument to obtain. For example, how do you know that you are not being deceived or tricked into believing that the growth process that animate creatures are subjected to is a continuous progression? For an argument to be valid it must be deductively sound, as well contain premises that are true. But with an argument of this type, how could one prove the
truth value of the premises? Therefore, it is my estimation that his argument does not sound very convincing. for his time. Had this been the late 1700s or early 1800s, it would seem that his argument does not seem very strong. Times have changed. Technology has advanced, and more and more complex theories have developed. In the case of DNA, we have techniques that can genetically alter the architecture of various organisms thus accelerating the growth process that may allow humans to observe a harmonious chain of events in the growth process without any gaps. Another theory that may aid in our understanding of the essence in animal life is that of discrete space. Discrete space is a representation we can use to model the universe and provide a natural length on the Planck scale of the distances between atoms, etc. If we think of the common processes used in physics labs to grow objects atom by atom, such as molecular beam epitaxy (mbe) or atomic layer deposition (ald), we see that the metamorphosis of animal life is not too far off. Animate creatures, one can reason, must grow atom by atom and perhaps it is through the use of the discrete space that will enable us to visualize metamorphosis.
The problem with the metamprphisis of plants
Works Cited Audi, Robert, the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 2nd edition, 1999 Goethe, Johann von Wolfgang, Goethes Botanical writings, Bertha Mueller translation, 1952 Class notes from lecture in Philosophy 498

More Related Content

The problem with the metamprphisis of plants

  • 1. The Problem (& Possible Solutions) of The Metamorphosis of Plants Robert Morien 990-41-5960 Philosophy 498 The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 12-17-06
  • 2. The purpose of this paper is two-fold; first to provide a brief introduction to Goethean science, and second, to examine some of the problems his science encounters and possible solutions to these problems. Goethes contributions to botany and the earth sciences were strongly empirical. He had a firm belief that the way to truth in the world was through direct observation and empirical experience rather than through the imagination and introspection. It is through the powers of observation that we can come to know how the world is organized; from the magnitude of the universe down to the smallest size where everything becomes the same form; namely atoms and nuclei. This faculty also empowers us to realize the distinction between appearances and essences. He acquires his motivations from Kant; however, he disagrees with the boundaries Kant set on the intellectual intuition. Kant sees a fine line distinction between intellectual intuition and discursive understanding; where intellectual intuition originates or creates its object and discursive understanding receives its object through analytical reasoning. Furthermore, Kant thought that we are limited in our understanding since we are only capable of utilizing the faculty of discursive understanding, whereas only god is capable of attaining the powers of intellectual intuition. This fine line separation is what separates us from god.
  • 3. Goethe, on the other hand thought that we are capable of bridging the gap between intellectual intuition and discursive understanding, and this is done through consciousness. Consciousness is what supplies the unity between appearances and essences and what is ultimately the tool which allows us to discover the Archetype, or gauge, from which to judge all the other plants from. But already there is a problem, since as stated above, Goethe was strictly empirical and did not think that we can come to know or even try to come to know the architecture of the universe though cognition as can be illustrated by one of his famous proclamations: Dont think, look, so that your imagination does not get in the way of your observations and obscure the very things you have discovered in the first place. He wanted to ensure that the thoughts one compose, absolutely conform to the pre-existence of nature, thus his requirement for direct, verifiable empirical observations. There is also a mechanistic problem to Goethes assessment as to how we can come to know the essence of a plant. Decomposition of inanimate objects allows one to discover the working pieces that provide the means of motion or other physical activities that the object is expected to perform. For example, an automobile is composed of an engine, transmission, axels,
  • 4. and wheels that provide the means for transportation to various destinations. The mechanic or engineer is properly trained in taking apart these various components to troubleshoot or discover their inner workings. Likewise, dissection allows the biologist to examine the many working parts that allow for the mobility of the numerous types of animal forms in the universe. Unlike the inanimate objects, however, the natural scientist is not capable of piecing back together a living creature because there is a life- force, a characteristic property of living beings capable of mental or physical activities, that no human is capable of producing from mere will. Thus, there seems to be a contradiction to Goethes claim that humans are capable of obtaining and employing the intellectual intuition, since here is an example where his argument does not hold. Through Goethes Botanical Writings, Goethe provides empirical observations in his investigations of plant life where he provides numerous detailed sketches of the metamorphosis of plant life; i.e. infancy to the adult stage as well as detailed documentation that describes each of his sketches and discoveries. He does this in pursuit of finding the Archetypal plant form which to gauge all other plants for conformity or deviation.
  • 5. He further asserts that any activity that is performed in nature is connected to the whole or an underlining unity that exists between all objects and creatures. He observes another problem, however. Plant life seems to be a continuous process; there does not appear to be any gaps during the progression of growth in animate creatures. Observation alone, however, is incapable of allowing humans to witness this phenomenon without interruption. One can argue that you can utilize a femto-second camera, a laser-triggered streak camera for the measurement of ultra-short events on the femto-second time scale. And if you speed this device up just enough so as to make growth appear continuous you can rectify the problem of observational inadequacies. Regardless of any technological device that aids in optical enhancement, there will still be 1 x 10 15 seconds per frame, or however short you please; and still there will exist discrete gaps, and will not be exactly continuous. What is it then that if we cannot actually see metamorphosis, gives us our experience of wholeness or unity as Goethe claims exists in nature? Is not continuity the very idea of an underlining unity between objects? He escapes this perplexing dilemma by making the following argument:
  • 6. Ordinary perception is a connection of discrete parts. The minds eye is capable of observing continuity, or animation of extremely slow processes through visualizations, etc. Therefore, we can see the connection of these discrete parts (metamorphosis) through the minds eye. It is then through this visualization that one is able to discover the plants Archetype, and hence an ultimate truth to concepts such as the organization of the world, and the solution to the question, why does nature seem to have a pre-determined path it follows throughout the course of its existence? Why is it that you would never find a monkey being a lion? At first glance, this does not seem as though his argument is watertight and would not hold under the intense scrutiny of philosophers such as the skeptics. There are several counterexamples one can think of that would not allow this argument to obtain. For example, how do you know that you are not being deceived or tricked into believing that the growth process that animate creatures are subjected to is a continuous progression? For an argument to be valid it must be deductively sound, as well contain premises that are true. But with an argument of this type, how could one prove the
  • 7. truth value of the premises? Therefore, it is my estimation that his argument does not sound very convincing. for his time. Had this been the late 1700s or early 1800s, it would seem that his argument does not seem very strong. Times have changed. Technology has advanced, and more and more complex theories have developed. In the case of DNA, we have techniques that can genetically alter the architecture of various organisms thus accelerating the growth process that may allow humans to observe a harmonious chain of events in the growth process without any gaps. Another theory that may aid in our understanding of the essence in animal life is that of discrete space. Discrete space is a representation we can use to model the universe and provide a natural length on the Planck scale of the distances between atoms, etc. If we think of the common processes used in physics labs to grow objects atom by atom, such as molecular beam epitaxy (mbe) or atomic layer deposition (ald), we see that the metamorphosis of animal life is not too far off. Animate creatures, one can reason, must grow atom by atom and perhaps it is through the use of the discrete space that will enable us to visualize metamorphosis.
  • 9. Works Cited Audi, Robert, the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 2nd edition, 1999 Goethe, Johann von Wolfgang, Goethes Botanical writings, Bertha Mueller translation, 1952 Class notes from lecture in Philosophy 498