E. THE ACTIVITY OF KNOWING NATURE
Nature's simplest way of working seems to us to be that in which a
process results entirely from factors that confront each other
externally. Here, an event or relationship between two objects is not
determined by an entity expressing itself in outer forms of
manifestation, by an individuality that makes its inner abilities and
character known by working outward. The event or relationship is
called forth solely by the fact that one thing, in its workings,
exercises a certain influence upon another, transferring its own
conditions onto others. The conditions of the one thing then manifest
as the consequence of those of the other. The system of processes
occurring in this way where one fact is always the result of
other ones like it is called inorganic nature.
Here, the course of a process, or that which is characteristic of a
relationship, depends upon outer determinants; the facts bear
attributes resulting from those determinants. If the way these outer
factors interact changes, then of course the result of their
interaction also changes; the phenomenon brought about in this way
thus changes.
Now what is this interaction like in the case of inorganic nature as
it directly enters our field of observation? It altogether bears the
character we described above as that of immediate experience. Here we
simply have to do with a particular case of that experience in
general. It is a matter here of connecting sense-perceptible
facts. These connections, however, are precisely what manifest
themselves to us so unclearly, so untransparently, in
experience. One fact a confronts us, but at the same time numerous
other ones do also. As we let our gaze sweep over the manifoldness
presented here, we are totally in the dark as to which of the other
facts have a closer relationship to this fact a and which have a more
remote relationship. Some facts may be present without which the event
cannot occur at all, and others are present that only modify it;
without these the event could indeed occur, but would then, under
different circumstances, assume a different form.
This also indicates the path that the activity of knowing has to take
in this field. If the combination of facts in immediate experience
does not suffice for us, then we must move on to a different
combination that will satisfy our need for explanation. We have to
create conditions such that a process will appear to us with
transparent clarity as the necessary result of these conditions.
Let us recall why it is in fact that thinking, to direct experience,
already contains its essential being. This is because we stand inside,
not outside, the process that creates thought-connections between the
individual thought-elements. Through this we are given not only the
completed process, what has been effected, but also what is at work.
And this is the point: in any occurrence of the outer world that
confronts us, to see first of all the driving forces that bring this
occurrence from the center of the world-all out into the periphery.
The opaqueness and unclarity of a phenomenon or relationship in
the sense world can be overcome only if we see, with total exactness,
that it is the result of a definite constellation of facts. We must
know that the process we see now arises through the working together
of this and that element of the sense world.- Then the way these
elements interact must be completely penetrable by our intellect. The
relationship into which the facts are brought must be an ideal one,
one in accordance with our spirit. Naturally, within the relationships
into which they are brought by the intellect, the things will behave
in accordance with their nature.
We see at once what is gained by this. If I look at random into the
sense world, I see processes brought about by the interaction of so
many factors that it is impossible for me to see directly what
actually stands as the effecting element behind these effects. I see a
process and at the same time the facts a, b, c, and d.
How am I to know immediately which of these facts participate more in
this process and which less? The matter becomes transparent if I first
investigate which of the four facts are absolutely necessary for the
process to occur at all. I find, for example that a and
c
are absolutely necessary. I subsequently find that without d
the process does indeed still occur, but significantly changed,
whereas I see that b is of no essential significance and could
be replaced by something else. In the above diagram, I is meant
to represent symbolically the grouping of the elements for mere sense
perception and II represents this grouping for the spirit. Our
spirit, therefore, groups the facts of the inorganic world in such a
way that it sees an event or a connection as the consequence of the
facts' interrelationships. Thus our spirit brings necessity into what
is of a chance nature. Let us make this clear through several
examples. If I have a triangle a b c before me, I definitely do
not see at first glance that the sum of the three angles is always
equal to a straight angle. This becomes clear immediately when I group
the facts in the following way. From the two figures below it follows
that angle a' equals angle a; angle b' equals
angle b. (AB is parallel to CD; A'B' is
parallel to C'D'). If I now have a triangle before me
and draw a straight line parallel to AB through point C,
I find, by using the above two figures, that angle a' equals
angle a; angle b' equals angle b. Since c
is equal to itself, the sum of the three angles of the triangle must
equal a
straight angle. Here I have explained a complicated combination of
facts by leading it back to simple facts through which, from the
relationship given to the human spirit, the corresponding connection
follows necessarily from the nature of the given things.
Here is another example. I throw a stone in a horizontal direction. It
follows a path we have represented by the line ll'. When I
consider the driving forces that come into consideration here, I find:
1) the propelling force that I exert; 2) the force with which the
earth draws the stone; 3) the force of air resistance.
Upon further reflection I find that the first two forces are the
essential ones, which determine the particular nature of the path,
whereas the third force is secondary. If only the first two were at
work, the stone would follow the path LL'. I find that path
when I totally disregard the third force and bring only the first two
into connection with each other. Actually performing this is neither
possible nor necessary. I cannot eliminate all resistance. But I need
only grasp in thought the nature of the first two forces, and then
bring them into the necessary connection likewise only in thought, and
the path LL' then results as the one that would necessarily
have to result if only the two forces were working together.
In this way man's spirit reduces all the phenomena of in organic
nature into the kind of phenomena in which the effect appears to his
spirit to emerge necessarily out of what is bringing about the
effect.
If, after determining the stone's law of motion resulting from the
first two forces one then brings in the third force also, the path
ll' then results. Other determinants could complicate the
matter still further. Every composite process of the sense world
manifests as a web of such elementary facts interpenetrated by man's
spirit and can be reduced to these.
Such a phenomenon, now, in which the character of the process follows
directly and in a transparently clear way out of the nature of the
pertinent factors, is called an archetypal phenomenon
(Urphänomen) or a basic fact (Grundtatsache).
This archetypal phenomenon is identical with objective natural
law. For in it is expressed not only that a process has occurred
under certain conditions but also that it had to occur. Given the
nature of what was under consideration there, one realises that the
process had to occur. One demands outer empiricism so generally today
because one believes that, with every assumption going beyond the
empirically given, one is groping about in uncertainty. We see that we
can remain completely within the phenomena and still arrive at what is
necessary. The inductive method adhered to so much today can never do
this. Basically, it proceeds in the following way. It sees a
phenomenon that occurs in a particular way under the given conditions.
A second time it sees the same phenomenon come about under similar
conditions. From this it infers that a general law exists according to
which this event must come about, and it expresses this law as such.
Such a method remains totally outside the phenomena. It does not
penetrate into the depths. Its laws are the generalizations of
individual facts. It must always wait for confirmation of the rule by
the individual facts. Our method knows that its laws are simply facts
that have been wrested from the confusion of chance happening and made
into necessary facts. We know that if the factors a and b are there, a
particular effect must necessarily take place. We do not go outside
the phenomenal world. The content of science, as we think of it, is
nothing more than objective happening. Only the form according to
which the facts are placed together is changed.
But through this one has actually penetrated a step deeper into
objectivity than experience makes possible. We place facts together in
such a way that they work in accordance with their own nature, and
only in accordance with it, and this working is not modified by one
circumstance or another.
We attach the greatest importance to the fact that these statements
can be verified no matter where one looks in the real conduct of
science. They are contradicted only by erroneous views held about the
scope and nature of scientific principles. Whereas many of our
contemporaries contradict their own theories when they enter the field
of practical investigation, the harmony of all true investigation with
our considerations could easily be shown in each individual case.
Our theory demands a definite form for every law of nature. It
presupposes a complex of facts and determines that when this complex
occurs anywhere in reality, a definite process must take place.
Every law of nature therefore has the form: When this fact interacts
with that one, then this phenomenon arises. It would be easy to show
that all laws of nature really have this form. When two bodies of
differing temperature are touching each other, then warmth flows from
the warmer one into the colder one until the temperature is the same
in both. When there is a fluid in two containers connected to each
other, the water level will be the same in both. When one object is
standing between a source of light and another object, it will cast a
shadow upon this other object. Whatever is not mere description in
mathematics, physics, and mechanics must be archetypal phenomenon.
All progress in science depends upon becoming aware of archetypal
phenomena. When one succeeds in lifting a process out of its
connections with other ones and explaining it purely as the result of
definite elements of experience, then one has penetrated a step deeper
into the working of the world.
We have seen that the archetypal phenomenon presents itself purely in
thoughts, when in thinking one relates the pertinent factors in
accordance with their essential being. But one can also set up the
necessary conditions artificially. This happens in scientific
experiments. Here we have the occurrence of certain facts under our
control. Of course we cannot disregard all circumstantial elements.
But there is a means of getting around them. One produces a phenomenon
with different modifications. One allows first these and then those
circumstantial elements to work. A constant is then found to run
through all these modifications. One must in fact retain what is
essential in all the different combinations. One finds that in all
these individual experiences one component part remains the same. This
part is higher experience within experience. It is a basic fact or
archetypal phenomenon.
Experimentation is meant to assure us that nothing influences a
particular process except what we have taken into account. We bring
together certain determining factors whose nature we know and wait to
see what results.
We have here an objective phenomenon on the basis of a subjective
creation. We have something objective which at the same time is
subjective through and through. The experiment is therefore the true
mediator between subject and object in inorganic science.
The germ of the view we have developed here is to be found in Goethe's
correspondence with Schiller. The letters between Goethe and Schiller
from the beginning of 1798 concern themselves with this. They call
this method rational empiricism, because it takes nothing other than
objective processes as content for science; these objective processes,
however, are held together by a web of concepts (laws) that our spirit
discovers in them. Sense-perceptible processes in a connection with
each other that can be grasped only by thinking this is
rational empiricism. If one compares those letters to Goethe's essay,
The Experiment as Mediator Between Subject and Object,
(7) one will see that the above theory follows consistently
from them.
The general relationship we have established between experience and
science therefore applies altogether to inorganic nature. Ordinary
experience is only half of reality. For the senses, only this half is
there. The other half is present only for our spiritual powers of
apprehension. Our spirit lifts experience from being a
manifestation for the senses to being a manifestation for
the spirit itself. We have shown how it is possible in this field to
lift oneself from what is caused to what is causing. Man's spirit
finds the latter when his spirit approaches the former.
Scientific satisfaction from a view comes to us only when this view
leads us into a totality complete in itself. Now the sense world in
its inorganic aspect, however, does not show itself at any one point
to be complete in itself; nowhere does there appear an individual
wholeness. One process always directs us to another, upon which it
depends; this one directs us to a third, and so on. Where is there any
completion? In its inorganic aspect the sense world does not attain
individuality. Only in its totality is it complete in itself. In order
to have a wholeness, therefore, we must strive to grasp the entirety
of the inorganic as one system. The cosmos is just such a system.
A penetrating understanding of the cosmos is the goal and ideal of
inorganic science. Any scientific striving that does not push this far
is mere preparation; it is a part of the whole, not the whole itself.
|