Goethe’s logic of passion – which Hegel called Logik and which Russell so famously misunderstood in his History of Western Philosophy– is simply to adopt a position wholeheartedly until you see its limitations by painful experience.
To help visualize this: imagine you were living in France during the Revolution – adopting the monarchist position or the revolutionary ideals at the wrong time could have led to imprisonment and death.
This procedure leads to sounder outcomes after adopting both sides of controversial viewpoints and finding both of their limitations – that is, dialectical syntheses (Hegel’s triad – roughly = thesis – antithesis – synthesis).
However, it is unnecessary. We can know a priori that any one-sided position is inadequate at modeling the zero sum multiverse that we live in.
In the case of the American and French Revolutionary ideals: we are more or less equal – equal with an asterisk, and our equality is so much more than is comprehended in the term “isonomia”.
Both Logik and the pain are unnecessary – under the assumption of a zero sum multi-verse, logic dictates that one-sided positions will inevitably fail to model our world.
Application to: metaphysics
The logical positivists like Bertrand Russell were almost completely correct: metaphysical thinking is not sound. They were passionate about this dictum, though to most of us, “who cares?” is the usual response to such an academic issue.
As a rule, the positivists were right; but here is a worthy meta-rule (a logical entity different from a rule, according to Rusell’s Theory of Types) that may or may not also have an exception: to every rule there is an exception.
The exception to the positivists’ rule: any metaphysics that models the data of science -physics, chemistry, and biology as of 2017- is worth looking at. Take a look at my metaphysics in Crazy or Just Crazy Enough to be True. I figured this out in High School in 1971-1972 with only a High Schooler’s knowledge of science (barely an outline of science as it is today).