The Platonic Tradition, Nature and the Environment

In The Abolition of Man, C S Lewis argues that modern technocratic approaches to knowledge threaten to plunge us headlong into natural, cultural, and anthropological crisis, the abolition of both nature and humanity. Lewis draws the book to a close with the suggestion that our way out of this situation lies in rediscovering a more Platonic natural philosophy – a kind of contemplative science – but he gives little indication of what such a a regenerate natural science might look like. I argue that one powerful historical precedent for such an approach can be found in the work of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, especially in the remarkable Essays on Method. In these eight essays, Coleridge presents a compelling Platonic vision of what it means to know nature, one that sees science itself as bound up with the recognition of nature as poetry, a tissue of symbols not yet understood but instinctively recognized.

Challenging the view that the Christian adaptation of Platonism only leads to a degradation of non-human nature, this paper will draw on the exemplary synthesis of Neoplatonism and Christianity in the early theologian Maximus the Confessor (580-662 CE), showing that this synthesis actually reveals an understanding of nature as much more than a resource or tool for human use. As Maximus demonstrates using Platonic participation and Neoplatonic-Aristotelian teleology, the Christian understanding is that God is the source and final goal of creation, and that created being’s excellence or virtue, its flourishing, is to be in union with the divine Logos. Using a Logos-theology, and the language of being, well-being, and eternal-well-being, Maximus teaches us how a theocentric approach, against an anthropocentric one, orients the human as existing within the rest of nature, all of which is moved toward flourishing in God.

While popularly known for his works of literature and poetry, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe viewed his lesser-known scientific pieces as his most enduring achievement. I will argue Goethe’s unique scientific methodology is informed by a metaphysical commitment to a form of Platonism and that Goethe provides an intriguing alternative paradigm that unifies science, philosophy, theology, and ethics. I begin by demonstrating how Goethe’s concept of the Urphänomen offers a Platonic conception of natural beings. I then briefly outline how this alternative scientific approach, one freed from a commitment to reductionism and materialism, ultimately derives from his Platonic conceptions. Next, I demonstrate the ethical and spiritual implications of Goethean science, establishing that Goethe’s approach bridges the divide between our scientific endeavors and spiritual formation. There is, then, a continued relevance for Goethe in conversations regarding ecological ethics and our perception of nature.

Shakespeare’s early Henry VI plays and late *The Tempest* both feature reclusive, bookish rulers who are deposed because their rivals perceive an opportunity in the rulers’ lack of interest in political affairs. Furthermore, the deposed rulers also share an interest in Platonic philosophies of the Renaissance. They differ, however, in their respective preferences for particular Platonist authors and writings. While Henry VI is devoted to Boethius’s *Consolation of Philosophy*, Prospero, the protagonist of *The Tempest* practices Neoplatonic magic, described in the Renaissance by Ficino. While the two plays aren’t often read together, I argue that doing so yields a fascinating contrast in the modes of existence dictated by different streams of Platonic thought. While Henry VI’s stoic, introspective Platonism leads him to adopt an attitude of extreme passivity and surrender, Prospero relates powerfully to others and to nature with his magical Platonism and ultimately wins back his dukedom.