[lit-ideas] Re: R. G. Collingwood, is he still worth reading?
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:53:51 EDT
I think he is. I was recently commenting on Grice commenting on Collingwood
in "Metaphysics", in D. F. Pears, the Nature of metaphysics. In this essay
(which I have posted excerpts of elsewhere) Grice comments on the good
idea of the 'presupposition' as the study of metaphysics. Grice, like
Collingwood, is concerned with the study of philosophy or metaphysics (more
strictly) as the crtitical examination of a conceptual framework. Grice
criticises
Collingwood, in a good pun that Grice makes, that Collingwood conforms
himself (as it were) with a mere 'archaeological' approach to the matter.
(Recall that Collingwood was a Roman archaeologist), and Grice will have none
of that. For Grice, the metaphysician has to delve deeper, even, than the
archaeologist. He has to examine the foundations and even aim at revising
them, and yield imaginative newer ones, if she can. Etc.
Grice refers to Collingwood as a 'traditionalist', unlike himself, who he
regards as a 'revolutionary', back in the day. (Both were Oxford best, of
course -- even if they belonged to totally unoverlapped generations).
JLS
In a message dated 3/29/2010 1:02:41 A.M., lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
writes:
I posted a note on this subject at
http://www.lawrencehelm.com/2010/03/r-g-collingwood-is-he-still-worth.html
Lawrence
Other related posts:
