{"corpus":"steiner","locus":"GA 1/l16/p034","lang":"en","edition":"MP1988","edition_basis":null,"is_original":false,"is_default_edition":true,"text":"Only someone who sees the absolute correctness of our findings can understand Goethe's colour theory. Any reflection about what a perception like light or colour might be in addition to the entity as which it manifests was completely foreign to Goethe's nature. For he knew what the powers of intellectual thinking were. Light was given to him as sensation. When he then wanted to explain the connection between light and colour, that could not occur through speculation, but only through an *archetypal phenomenon*, by his seeking out the necessary determining factor that must join light in order for colour to arise. Newton also saw colour arise in connection with light, but he then only thought speculatively about how colour arises out of light. It lay in his speculative way of thinking to do so; but not in Goethe's way of thinking, which was objective and rightly understood itself. Therefore, Newton's assumption that “light is composed of colored lights” had to appear to Goethe as the result of unrightful speculation. He considered himself justified only in expressing something about the *connection* between light and colour when some determining factor joins in, and not in expressing something about the light itself by bringing in a speculative concept. Therefore his statement: “Light is the simplest, most undivided, most homogeneous being that we know. It is not a composite.” Any statements about the composition of light are, indeed, only statements of the intellect about one phenomenon. The powers of the intellect, however, extend only to statements about the *connection* of phenomena.","text_trust":"verbatim","quote_safe":true,"title":"16. Goethe as Thinker and Investigator","site_heading":null,"date":null,"location":null,"word_count":257,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/en/ga/1/l16/p034","alignment_confidence":"high","alignment_reason":"beads:length","two_voice_volume":false,"translation_credit":null,"edition_coverage":{"de":["original"],"en":["MP1988"]},"available_versions":[{"lang":"de","edition":"original","edition_basis":null,"is_original":true,"is_default_edition":true,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/1/l16/p034"},{"lang":"en","edition":"MP1988","edition_basis":null,"is_original":false,"is_default_edition":true,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/en/ga/1/l16/p034","paragraph_aligned":true}],"paired_german":{"status":"paired","german":[{"locus":"GA 1/l16/p034","passage_number":34,"text":"Nur wer die unbedingte Richtigkeit dieser unserer Ableitungen einsieht, kann Goethes Farbenlehre verstehen. Nachzudenken darüber, was eine Wahrnehmung wie z. B. das Licht, die Farbe sonst noch sei, außer der Wesenheit, als welche sie auftreten, das lag Goethe ganz fern. Denn er kannte jene Befugnis des verständigen Denkens. Ihm war das Licht als Empfindung gegeben. Wenn er nun den Zusammenhang zwischen Licht und Farbe erklären wollte, so konnte das nicht durch eine Spekulation geschehen, sondern nur durch ein *Urphänomen,* indem er die notwendige Bedingung aufsuchte, die zum Lichte hinzutreten muß, um die Farbe entstehen zu lassen. Newton sah auch die Farbe in Verbindung mit dem Lichte auftreten, aber er dachte nun spekulativ nach: Wie entsteht die Farbe aus dem Lichte. Das lag in seiner spekulativen Denkweise; in Goethes gegenständlicher und richtig sich selbst verstehender Denkweise lag das nicht. Deshalb mußte ihm Newtons Annahme: «Das Licht ist aus farbigen Lichtern zusammengesetzt» als Ergebnis unrichtiger Spekulation erscheinen. Er hielt sich nur berechtigt, über den *Zusammenhang* von Licht und Farbe unter Hinzutritt einer Bedingung etwas auszusagen, nicht aber über das Licht selbst durch Hinzuziehung eines spekulativen Begriffes. Daher sein Satz: «Das Licht ist das einfachste, unzerlegteste, homogenste Wesen, das wir kennen. Es ist nicht zusammengesetzt..» Alle Aussagen über Zusammensetzung des Lichtes sind ja nur Aussagen des Verstandes über ein Phänomen. Die Befugnis des Verstandes erstreckt sich aber nur auf Aussagen über den *Zusammenhang* von Phänomenen..","text_trust":"verbatim","quote_safe":true,"word_count":232,"url":"https://anthroposophy.ai/v1/steiner/de/ga/1/l16/p034"}],"english":["GA 1/l16/p034"],"method":"length","confidence":"high","correspondence":"established","length_check":{"de_words":232,"en_words":257,"ratio":1.11,"partial":false},"pairing_state":"proposed","verified":false},"witness_completeness":{"ratio":1.14,"band":"comparable","note":null,"word_count":12330,"original_word_count":10769,"may_be_abridged":false},"witness_quality":{"translator":{"status":"unknown","warning":"No translator is recorded for this edition. An unattributed translation cannot be weighed as a witness: you cannot tell which hand made the choices in it. Cite the German for anything load-bearing."},"entity_parity":{"status":"ok","checked_against":["GA 1/l16/p034"],"missing_from_translation":[],"present_only_in_translation":[],"bead_confidence":"high","note":"Every load-bearing name in the German counterpart appears in this English passage. That is a check on NAMES only: a translation can keep every name and still reverse who acts on whom, change a number, or soften a claim. Read the German for anything you intend to rest an argument on."},"note":"quote_safe certifies the bytes of this text. This block is about the translation as a WITNESS: who made it, and whether it carries the same names as the original. See witness_completeness for how much of the original this witness holds."}}