Goethe contrasts art with nature and defines them as the two elements of an opposing "counterplay [Widerspiel]." This juxtaposition is not particularly new, but rather basic or classic. In ancient Greece, Aristotle juxtaposed "technē [τέχνη]" with "physis [φύσις]." By physis he means entities that are generated and developed within themselves. Contrary to physis, technē owes its cause to something or someone other than itself. Physis grows autonomically, but technē is made by an artist or

more »

... r. According to Aristotle, human activities are composed of technē, "prāxis [πρᾶξις]" and "theōria [θεωρία]." 1 The concept of technē substantiates "poiēsis [ποίησις]" (production, creation or making). Poiēsis includes poetry and rhetoric as its subclass and illustrates an artistic activity. 2 Goethe conceives poiēsis as an important root of scientific knowledge and illustrates it as an elemental aspect of ancient Greek culture. Goethe, who is one of the main figures of Weimar Classicism, tries to re-establish the ancient affinity of science and art-or theōria and poiēsis-in his period. He interprets art and science as entities that are not separated in ancient Greek culture, and accordingly evaluates the Greek attitude toward art and science in the historical section of his Theory of Colours. Here he writes: "The Greeks, who came over from the regions of poetry for their observations of nature, still retained poetic qualities" (Goethe, WA II, 3:109). As mentioned above, poetry is one of the representative subdivisions of poiēsis. According to Goethe, the Greek treated nature based on their understanding of poiēsis. This juxtaposition of physis and poiēsis was also described in Goethe's early perception of nature as a devouring power that is in constant counterplay with art. Goethe furthermore describes the relation between natural science and art in the history section of his Theory of Colours: Returning now to the comparison of art and science, we encounter the following consideration: since in knowledge as well as in reflection, no Totality can be brought together, because one [art] lacks the inside and one [science] lacks the outside, then we must necessarily think science as art, if we expect some kind of wholeness. And we do not have to look for them in the general or the Exuberant, but just as art always presents itself completely in every single art work, so should science also prove itself every time completely in every single treated object. But to approach such a demand, one ought not to exclude any kind of human power in scientific activity. The abysses of prediction, a reliable intuition of the present, mathematical depth, physical accuracy, height of reason, sharpness of understanding, agile longing imagination, affectionate joy in sensuality, nothing can be dispensed of for the lively, fruitful grasping of the moment, through which a work of art alone, whatever its content would be, can be created by itself (Goethe, WA II, 3:120) The artist wishes his work to be complete in every aspect. He or she forms it in harmony with the components and milieus of his or her environment. The scientist, however, tries to prove the validity of a theory in a specific research area on a certain condition. It is this restriction or rigorousness that makes science exact. Art, on the one hand, lacks solid content through exact investigation, while science, on the other hand, lacks harmony or totality. Goethe claims that if science should reach totality or integrity, it must be considered as art. He thus considers the unification of science with art 国際哲学研究 9 号 2020 75 in the same way as the ancient Greeks. Since Goethe treats art and science integrally, his natural science inevitably adopts the character of poiēsis. This view on science is representatively illustrated in Goethe's Theory of Colours. In fact, his investigation of colours begins from his scrutiny of paintings, which indicates that his theory mainly focuses on the poetic creation of colours. Goethe describes the juxtaposition of nature's tremendous power with her antagonist, i.e. the individual. The individual, caught up in this "counterplay," can only defend him-or herself from nature through the counterpower of poiēsis, i.e. art and science. Unclear definition of the archetypal phenomenon The quintessence of Goethe's theory of colours lies in the archetypal phenomenon (Urphänomen), through which the diverse developments or metamorphoses of colours can be comprehended. The archetype of colours is composed of three elements: light, darkness and semi-transparent media. Goethe's theory of colours is often considered as a theory of the mixture of white and black (light and darkness). Aristotle already described the theory of mixture, and numerous variations followed this peripatetic theory. Goethe's theory also defines light and darkness as central elements of his theory of colours, but this does not justify the rash reasoning that Goethe's theory was nothing but a variation of the Aristotelian theory of colours-an opinion that is frequently encountered. Light and darkness are key materials in peripatetic theories. Descartes, who stands in the tradition of Aristotle, explains light and darkness by quality of ether, which is made of infinite divisible particles. Light transmits through the ether and brings it into a certain state of movement. This movement appears as the phenomenon of colours. Goethe, however, does not always consider light and darkness as materials but as activities, and that therefore colours are the products of the actions of light and darkness. Hence Goethe's theory of colours focuses on the dynamic action of light and darkness.