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.
Goethe’s 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:
“Don’t 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 Goethe’s 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 Goethe’s claim that humans are capable
of obtaining and employing the intellectual intuition, since here is an
example where his argument does not hold.
Through “Goethe’s 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
1700’s or early 1800’s, 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, “Goethe’s Botanical writings”, Bertha
Mueller translation, 1952
Class notes from lecture in Philosophy 498