The Ontological Hesitation in Gustav Fechner’s Psychophysical Cosmology
In the baroque architecture of nineteenth-century metaphysical speculation, few edifices appear as strangely configured and little trodden as the system of Gustav Theodor Fechner (1801–1887), whose psychophysical panentheism occupies an enigmatic intermediate zone between natural science and speculative philosophy. Though occasionally remembered as a precursor to empirical psychology, Fechner’s deeper metaphysical commitments—glimmering just beneath his scientific treatises—elude categorical assimilation. At the heart of his cosmology lies a subtle but decisive hesitation: a dialectical quiver between empirical insistence and ontological speculation, observable in his frequently overlooked treatment of the Earth’s soul in his 1848 text “Nanna, or On the Soul-Life of Plants.”
This essay considers a subtle metaphysical deviation—henceforth termed the “Ontological Hesitation”—in Fechner’s works. It is a hesitation not of ignorance but of method, revealing itself most palpably in Fechner’s endeavor to ontologize psychophysical parallelism through the invention of a sentient Earth, vollständige Weltseele. Rather than brashly assert a robust metaphysical position, Fechner embeds speculative ontology inside graded metaphor, a maneuver that has led many commentators to misclassify his system as a merely poetic animism. Yet a careful reading indicates that the gentle veil of metaphor serves to cushion—and thus preserve—his profound hypothesis: that all ordering principles of consciousness and matter converge in a subordinate teleology nested within larger experiential fields.
In “Nanna,” Fechner posits—with idiosyncratic tenacity—that plants possess a species of interiority, or Seelenleben. Far from being an anthropomorphic projection, this is presented as a rigorous extension of psychophysical continuity. “From the law which connects bodily and psychical activity in man,” he argues, “we extend the same necessity to all levels of organic being.”¹ This proposal, provocative though it was in a century of Cartesian resurgences, was built not upon whimsical conjecture but upon the psychophysical parallelism he had earlier developed, wherein the phenomena of mind and matter are treated as inner and outer expressions of a single reality. Here the Ontological Hesitation reveals itself: Fechner dares to suggest, yet shies away from insisting on, a universal interiority radiant even in flora.
The hesitancy is methodological. We find Fechner vacillating between metaphor and assertion, presenting Earth’s sentience not as a dogma but as a “beautiful and pious thought,” which yet builds analytic consequences with all the rigor of scientific deduction. The Earth, he posits, is not merely a theater for consciousness, but a bearer of its own cosmic consciousness. Later in “Zend-Avesta” (1851), Fechner elaborates this claim with a mixture of scrupulous analogical reasoning and spiritual candor, declaring the Earth to be the organism whose mind we touch in dreams, morality, and ecological balance.² Why, then, does he refrain from an unambiguous metaphysical claim?
This ontological hesitation reflects both epistemic and theological scruples. Fechner, a Lutheran mystic as much as physicist, perceived the transcendent not as an object revealed through metaphysical aggression but as a domain to be approached with reverent inference. It is this reverence that prevents the violent objectification of metaphysics. His writing style, a combination of empirical sobriety and lyrical abstraction, thus becomes the expression of a worldview in which being itself is seen as veiled, responsive, and hierarchical.
Yet this very hesitation contains the philosophic revolution latent in his work. By refusing to reify his metaphysical conclusions, Fechner preserves the primacy of lived consciousness over speculative coercion. In his system, the Earth-soul is not a substantiated absolute, but a guiding regulative principle whereby phenomena of communion and organicity are rendered intelligible. That he avoids declaring the Earth-soul as a necessary Being reflects his larger commitment to the idea that the structure of reality is not fully available to isolating reason, but emerges through participatory perception, elevation, and analogy.
The implications of this methodological subtlety are profound. In most systems of cosmology, the hierarchy of being moves from object to object through metaphysical necessity. Fechner reverses this motion by suggesting a hierarchy of perspectives—each layer of nature is a perspective onto the whole, itself a bearer of interiority. When he asks whether the Earth dreams, or whether stars think, he is not engaging in idle metaphorization, but in a radical shift from the ontology of substances to the ontology of experiencers.³ This operation, however, is veiled through stylistic and rhetorical indirection, giving the inattentive reader the impression of metaphor where he in fact performs conceptual surgery.
A striking passage from “Zend-Avesta” encapsulates this gesture: “So the Earth opens to me her eyelids when I wake, and withdraws them when I sleep, just as I feel from within a sameness with her breath.”⁴ The philosophical consequence is not that the Earth is literally a human-like organism, but that the separateness between subject and cosmos is a localized illusion—an effect of perceptual position rather than ontological fact. In this, we discern echoes of a proto-panpsychism, anticipating modern debates that have only recently begun to re-express what Fechner adumbrated in semi-liturgical prose.
Perhaps the most significant contribution of Fechner’s Ontological Hesitation is that it forges an ethics—one which affirms communion, reverence, and relationality with all that exists. From the hesitant soul of plants to the dreaming mind of stars, Fechner’s universe is one in which the ethical derives not from law but from participation in being. His refusal to dogmatize the Earth-soul establishes a model by which metaphysical humility enables rather than stifles innovation.
In an age where binary polemics between materialism and idealism continue to shape the philosophical horizon, Fechner’s gentle wavering offers a third way: a participatory metaphysics in which cosmological hypotheses are neither declared nor denied, but ritually unfolded in the poetic grammar of analogy and resonance. His ontological hesitation is not a flaw or evasion, but a testament to a higher philosophical discipline—a regard for the unspeakable that can only be hinted at through conjoined figures of thought and reverence.
Thus, though Fechner may strike the modern reader as obscure or overly lyrical, the profound subtlety of his hesitations, his methodical temperance, stands as a corrective both to contemporary empiricism’s dogmatic closure and to idealism’s bravura. In his refusal to conquer reality, he discloses its intimacy.
By Martijn Benders – Philosophy Dep. of the Moonmoth Monestarium
panpsychism, psychophysical parallelism, poetic metaphysics, ontology, Gustav Fechner, 19th-century philosophy, proto-phenomenology
—
1. Fechner, Gustav. “Nanna: oder über das Seelenleben der Pflanzen”, Leipzig, 1848.
2. Fechner, Gustav. “Zend-Avesta: oder über die Dinge des Himmels und des Jenseits”, Leipzig, 1851.
3. Skrbina, David. “Panpsychism in the West”, MIT Press, 2005. Chapter 7 discusses Fechner’s influence on modern panpsychism.
4. Fechner, “Zend-Avesta”, p. 229.