Central to the paper below, is an emphasis on the spontaneously responsive nature of our living bodies, and on the special intertwined, dialogic, or chiasmic nature of events that can occur only in our meetings with others and otherness around us. As participants in such meetings, immediately responsive 'withness-understandings' become available to us that are quite different to the 'aboutness-understandings' we arrive at as disengaged, intellectual spectators. I argue that Goethe's "delicate empiricism", far from being an arcane form of understanding, is a deliberately extended version of this kind of withness-understanding — an anticipatory form of practical understanding that gives us a direct sense of how, in Wittgenstein's (1953) terms, to 'go on' with the others and othernesses around us in our daily lives.

Goethe belongs to the phenomenological tradition for a number of reasons: He shared Husserl's deep mistrust of the mathematization of the natural world and the ensuing loss of the qualitative dimension of human existence; he understood that the phenomenological observer must free him/herself from sedimented cultural prejudices, a process which Husserl called the epoche; he experienced and articulated the new and surprising fullness of the world as it reveals itself to the patient and participatory phenomenological observer. Goethe's phenomenological sensibilities and insights become more apparent when his work is brought into dialogue with Husserl's thinking. In turn Goethe challenges Husserlian phenomenology to a more careful investigation of the natural world and human participation within its order. Both Goethe and Husserl are searching for a science of the qualitative dimension of being.

This essay is a journey into the phenomenology of place and Goethe's science of nature by an Australian lecturer on the philosophies and practices of place-based education. It takes the form of a series of encounters with leading figures in the field— David Seamon, Henri Bortoft and Isis Brook, as well as an application of Goethean science to some granite outcroppings on the Cornish coast of England. The profundity of the phenomenological concepts of 'natural attitude' and 'lifeworld' is discussed together with ideas behind Goethe's participative and intuitive practices. Goethean science and phenomenology have enormous potential to deepen the experience, understanding and expression of place relationships, but they put challenging demands upon students and lecturers within the structure of a university subject.

In Representative Men, Ralph Waldo Emerson presented Goethe as the prototype of the writer elected by nature, and he identified Goethe's specific genius as "putting ever a thing for a word." But Goethe's talents as writer and poet have long seemed to scientific readers to undermine his efforts to be a scientist, and to talk of his, or any, poetics of science would involve a category mistake. But putting things to words—that is, filling and structuring what we say about the world with the content of experience—is what Goethe's investigations of nature aimed at. Considered as a philosophy of science, his method gives robust meaning and contemporary relevance to the term "poetics of science."

The essay examines passages from Henry David Thoreau's journal and Walden as illustrations of Goethe's phenomenological approach to nature, focusing on the influence on Thoreau of Goethe's discovery of metamorphosis as the generative principle of plants, and his proclamation that "first to last the plant is nothing but leaf." The essay shows how Goethe and Thoreau bring a poet's heightened awareness of language to their scientific observation of nature, and argues that their attention to figurative language, its limits as well as its possibilities, helps them and their readers to develop the needed flexibility to think along with rather than merely about nature.

Comparative biology is afield that deals with morphology. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe recognised comparative biology, not as a passive science obsessed with counting similarities as it is today, but as an active field wherein he sought to perceive the inter-relationships of individual organisms to the organic whole, which he termed the archetype. I submit that Goethe's archetype and his application of a technique termed the Anschauung are rigorous and significant ways to conduct delicate empiricism in comparative biology. The future of comparative biology lies in the use of the Anschauung to communicate the archetype as a set of inter-relationships of homologues that we perceive intuitively. In this essay I present how the extension of our own intuitive perception forms the foundations of a method for seeing and discovering the archetype in comparative biology.

I argue here that Goethe's "delicate empiricism" is not an alternative approach to science, but an approach that scientists use consistently, though they usually do not label it as such. I further contend that Goethe's views are relevant to today's science, specifically to work on the structure of macromolecules such as proteins. Using the work of Agnes Arber, a botanist and philosopher of science, I will show how her writings help to relate Goethe's work to present-day issues of cognition and perception.

In this essay I hope to demonstrate that Goethe's delicate empiricism is a science of life in all of its forms. To gain a full understanding of life, Goethe's method requires that the scientist respect and treasure life. I argue that to accomplish this goal one must become an apprentice to life. Becoming an apprentice to life requires that one refuses to eat the Other. This implies that Goethe's method can be fruitfully employed by anyone who seeks social justice. First, I elaborate on bell hooks idea of eating the Other using several African American social critics. Then, I explain Goethe's delicate empiricism by contrasting it to the science of his day which was grounded in Bacon and Descartes and elaborated by Kant. Finally, by expanding upon Elizabeth Spelman's discussion of apprenticeship, I develop the idea of a Goethean apprentice who is a practitioner of a science of life based on a morality which opposes eating the Other.

Written by a social development practitioner, this paper applies a Goethean approach to the social sphere. The contention being that the Goethean method and understanding can be extended to working with social development processes; equally, that facilitation of social process is enhanced and deepened through a Goethean sensibility. The bulk of the paper, book ended by two obliquely apposite short stories, follows the process of a collaborative enquiry (facilitated by the author) during which participants reflected on a particular social phenomenon. The paper is an illustration of the value of the Goethean approach not only to the (social) phenomenon itself but to the sensibility of participants and groups which undertake it. It also serves to extend the realm of Goethean application into a sphere which is in desperate need of such sensibility.