Published posthumously in 1965, this book contains various essays by R. G. Collingwood concerning history, philosophy, and their relationship. The essays mostly concern the idea of a 'philosophy of history', exploring its aims, limitations, and relevance. Highly recommended for students of philosophy and collectors of vintage literature of this ilk. Contents include: "Croce's Philosophy of History", "Are History and Science Different Kinds of Knowledge?", "The Nature and Aims of a Philosophy of History", "Oswald Spengler and the Theory of Historical Cycles", "The Limits of Historical Knowledge", "A Philosophy of History", "A Philosophy of Progress", etc. Robin George Collingwood, FBA (1889 - 1943) was an English historian, philosopher, and archaeologist most famous for his philosophical works including "The Principles of Art" (1938) and the posthumously-published "The Idea of History" (1946). This fascinating volume will appeal to those with an interest in Collingwood's seminal work, and is not to be missed by students of philosophy and art. Many vintage books such as this are increasingly scarce and expensive. It is with this in mind that we are republishing this volume today in an affordable, modern edition complete with a specially-commissioned new biography of the author.
Robin George Collingwood was an English philosopher and historian. Collingwood was a fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford, for some 15 years until becoming the Waynflete Professor of Metaphysical Philosophy at Magdalen College, Oxford.
For students of philosophy of history - this book is a must. RG is a very accessible philosopher and yet tackles deep questions - you will go away after reading this book with a completely new take on history - if you don't - reread it.
This slender volume is a selection of Collingwood's early essays on the philosophy of history and contains ideas that he later developed more fully. All are accessible to those new to the subject matter but contain reflections interesting enough to hold the attention of those more seasoned. Those looking for some grandiose system of the scale of a Marx or Hegel need only read his rather withering critique of the work of Oswald Spengler to see what he thinks of that sort of conception of the philosophy of history, but that does not mean he is without appreciation of the labors of the aforementioned or of other laborers in the field such as Herder and Vico (the latter he seems to hold in special esteem). His own view, at least to the extent it is articulated in these pages, is that history is always about the present, or to be more specific, the present state of the past. As a result, it is not and never can be finished, and to the extent that it is of merely antiquarian interest, it is bad history.