Collingwood's Idea of History & Speculum Mentis

[Divide by Zero]

Re: Extraordinary, Important Book for those Doing The Work

Well, the most important parts of the book, to me, are in the second half when he gets deeply into the workings of "mind". The fact that he is approaching it via history is important, but almost to the side of what I think is most important.

I'm now reading "In Defense of History" by Evans and he points out, rightly, that Collingwood was a bit too attached to political history as being the only kind of history. But of course, Collingwood's point was more metaphysical, I think; it's as though he was describing "mind" - in the sense of collective mind - being the real object of history. And I think he was onto something.

For those who want some good insights into the postmodernist silliness, do read the just mentioned book by Evans. He provides some direct quotes and I swear, the postmodernists come across as certifiable... the ravings of the inmates of asylums.

Thanks for the heads up, I'm still slowly getting through the beginnings.


The postmodernists sound like children with the strength of adults behind their convictions. At least children's beliefs are not so solid and I can excuse children who are misinformed. I have little to no patience for adults who use childish logic to justify things- one of the things I have to work on IMHO. I should see them as children deep inside, but it's hard when they try to use intimidation or shaming/etc to get their broken point across.

 

[Voyageur]

Re: Extraordinary, Important Book for those Doing The Work

Well, the most important parts of the book, to me, are in the second half when he gets deeply into the workings of "mind". The fact that he is approaching it via history is important, but almost to the side of what I think is most important.

I'm now reading "In Defense of History" by Evans and he points out, rightly, that Collingwood was a bit too attached to political history as being the only kind of history. But of course, Collingwood's point was more metaphysical, I think; it's as though he was describing "mind" - in the sense of collective mind - being the real object of history. And I think he was onto something.

For those who want some good insights into the postmodernist silliness, do read the just mentioned book by Evans. He provides some direct quotes and I swear, the postmodernists come across as certifiable... the ravings of the inmates of asylums.

Thanks for the heads up, I'm still slowly getting through the beginnings.


The postmodernists sound like children with the strength of adults behind their convictions. At least children's beliefs are not so solid and I can excuse children who are misinformed. I have little to no patience for adults who use childish logic to justify things- one of the things I have to work on IMHO. I should see them as children deep inside, but it's hard when they try to use intimidation or shaming/etc to get their broken point across.

The book arrived for me last week (just in time for the commuter routers complete failure) and am not far into it either. Noted the editors remarks, T. M. Knox, which was interesting in of itself, concerning some of the critics against Collingwood, including Knox on some works, who also said that Collingwood would have wanted this criticism. Knox said of some other critics that they did not properly read his introduction, or something similar. I've a ways to go though, yet am enjoying it.

Thanks for the other book on history, the Evan's recommendation!

 

[herondancer]

Re: R. G. Collingwood: The Idea of History

I'm almost through the first half of Collingwood, where he traces historical thought's development. He is a slow go, but Collingwood is a gracious author in that when he introduces a a term or concept, he is careful to explain and illustrate it. He's also witty about it, in that sly, dry academic fashion. Good read so far!

 

[John G]

Re: Gurdjieff's Primitive Cosmology

Regarding the present day Gurdjieff groups, especially the Gurdjieff Foundation groups, of which there are a LOT worldwide I wonder if there is some kind of 'Darkness Over Tibet' thing going on with the whole bunch of 'em. During the time of Gurdjieff maybe it was about 'inner work' primarily. Kind of like the inhale phase of the Work but maybe at this point in time we are in the exhale phase of the work, which is an outward movement, where certain ideas need to be be spread into the world such as psychopathy, objective criticism of society and the Government, new Knowledge that comes from the future, etc., and maybe they are all stuck in the inhale phase (so to speak) thinking that it's the "Fourth Way" and never moving on? I don't really know, but I would think that a true spiritual movement would be an outward movement and not an inner one. Just thinking aloud here fwiw.

Yeah even the history for the Enneagram used as a mundane modern personality model had a black magician-like origin.

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,215.msg93501.html#msg93501

 

[luc]

Re: R. G. Collingwood: The Idea of History

Finished about a third of the book, a truly fascinating read! Collingwood really untangles a lot of the crazy-making philosophical problems an puts them in the proper context. I almost get the impression that the history of philosophy could be read as a war between those who refuse to see (or simply cannot see) the deeper reality behind this world, i.e. the realm of thought/ideas/spirit which runs through/interacts with our material reality, and those who understand this and struggle to make sense of it.

Among the many interesting things, so far Collingwood's discussion of the enlightenment stood out - powerful and insightful as the enlightenment thinkers might have been, they also based their view on some very wrong assumptions with which we still struggle today. Putting this in its proper historical context, as Collingwood does, is extremely fruitful - from today's perspective, we can see where the enlightenment went wrong and why, and of course what they got right. This is much more helpful than putting the enlightenment philosophy on a pedestral like, I guess, many of those "new enlightenment warriors" such as Dawkins & Co do. This seems rather backwards, actually.

Another thought I had regarding "critical history": Collingwood masterfully points out the errors in the critical approach to history (like textual analysis of historical documents and such), not because the method doesn't work, but because these people work under a positivist assumption: that history can and should be carried out like the natural sciences, i.e. "only the facts count". But this simply cannot be done, because a historian is not a scientists doing replicable experiments in a lab. The historian always has to choose which facts he studies for a reason; he has to interpret thoughts and motivations of historical actors; he has to judge historical developments and come up with logical and coherent theories etc. In other words, he needs to consider the sphere of thoughts/ideas and the associated patterns that lie behind history.

This is interesting in light of postmodernism and all that it entails: postmodernism seems to work, weirdly enough, under a positivist assumption as well - that all there is is external facts, i.e. empiricism/materialism. (That the postmodernists are mainly marxists seems rather fitting, because Marx was a materialist as well.) But then it embraces a scepticist view in addition to that: namely, that we cannot know reality, that we don't have direct access to reality because our senses screw it up. If you combine these two - empiricism/materialism and scepticism - you end up in a philosophical cul-de-sac, because you a) deny that there is a non-material realm of thought/ideas/spirit that transcends material reality and b) deny that you can know anything about material reality. This essentially turns human beings into subjective islands with no purpose and no connection to reality. All that's left is your whims and your narcissism - exactly what we see in today's postmodern nihilism.

Don't know if I got this right - but Collingwood is a stimulating read for sure!

 

[nicklebleu]

Re: R. G. Collingwood: The Idea of History

This is a Patristic doctrine: the Devil is defined by the early Christian writer Hippolytus as ho antitatton tois kosmikois.

Tried to find the translation of the Greek bolded part, but wasn't able to find it. Anyone an idea how that translates?

Thanks!

 

[Bobo08]

Re: R. G. Collingwood: The Idea of History

This is a Patristic doctrine: the Devil is defined by the early Christian writer Hippolytus as ho antitatton tois kosmikois.

Tried to find the translation of the Greek bolded part, but wasn't able to find it. Anyone an idea how that translates?

Thanks!

Google Translate gave me: "against the cosmic ones".

 

[Ryan]

Re: Gurdjieff's Primitive Cosmology

The fact that his "perfect god" couldn't have been so perfect if he created a universe for himself that was gradually diminishing and thus necessitated the creation of the imperfect and mechanical universe where life comes into being to "feed the system" and keep his "home" from shrinking to nothing, never seems to have occcurred to him.

I think I've always been wondering about this on semi-subconscious level. It always strikes me as strange when a cosmology or myth talks about an 'all-powerful God' that is nonetheless bound by circumstance or whatever to do some such thing. If the 'God' was all-powerful, he wouldn't have to do anything!

The situation is a bit of a shock, yet also not a complete surprise (if that makes sense?)

I agree that there are many confusing and unclear things about G’s cosmology. It’s kind of a relief to chuck it all out and stop trying to match the “cosmoses” up with the densities etc. The Laws of 3 and 7 have some support outside of G’s system osit; there are many psychological things he likely got right, and he did seem to be moving in the right direction throughout his life. Imo his ideas about human thought and the mind take on a more “Jungian” flavour in his later books, just a pity his progress was slowed by some materialistic influences.

His ideas about ‘hasnamuss’ humans are a ‘sort-of’ explanation for pathology, but mostly in the sense of a “mental deterioration begets pathology begets further mental deterioration” sort of way. He doesn’t really allow for “pathology by design”. I do think he very subtly conveyed the idea that some higher-order beings lacked developed conscience proportional to their Reason, but that probably falls far short of what we consider to be 4D STS hyperdimensional beings.

Also, his idea that Earth was basically the only planet in the Universe where things had run amok seems more like a morality tale than something actually realistic. If it happened on one planet, you’d think there would at least be a few others. Also, G never really said anything about cyclical cometary bombardment, and if this was part of the knowledge the Stoics had, then you’d probably think G would have given that more of a prominent featuring in his cosmology.

I'm going to have to read these books (well, the main two) for myself to get a proper handle on this, I think. I like G. a lot, his writings have been a healing influence for me over the past few years. Stuff like that doesn't get written by con-artists or people who don't have at least some idea of what they're doing.

 

[PhoenixToEmber]

Re: R. G. Collingwood: The Idea of History

I ordered a vintage paperback copy of The Idea of History off eBay yesterday morning, but this morning, while doing some more research about the book and the author, I realized there was a revised edition published in 1994.

Is there a huge difference between the two editions? Which edition are most you reading from?

 

[genero81]

Re: R. G. Collingwood: The Idea of History

Finished about a third of the book, a truly fascinating read! Collingwood really untangles a lot of the crazy-making philosophical problems an puts them in the proper context. I almost get the impression that the history of philosophy could be read as a war between those who refuse to see (or simply cannot see) the deeper reality behind this world, i.e. the realm of thought/ideas/spirit which runs through/interacts with our material reality, and those who understand this and struggle to make sense of it.

Among the many interesting things, so far Collingwood's discussion of the enlightenment stood out - powerful and insightful as the enlightenment thinkers might have been, they also based their view on some very wrong assumptions with which we still struggle today. Putting this in its proper historical context, as Collingwood does, is extremely fruitful - from today's perspective, we can see where the enlightenment went wrong and why, and of course what they got right. This is much more helpful than putting the enlightenment philosophy on a pedestral like, I guess, many of those "new enlightenment warriors" such as Dawkins & Co do. This seems rather backwards, actually.

Another thought I had regarding "critical history": Collingwood masterfully points out the errors in the critical approach to history (like textual analysis of historical documents and such), not because the method doesn't work, but because these people work under a positivist assumption: that history can and should be carried out like the natural sciences, i.e. "only the facts count". But this simply cannot be done, because a historian is not a scientists doing replicable experiments in a lab. The historian always has to choose which facts he studies for a reason; he has to interpret thoughts and motivations of historical actors; he has to judge historical developments and come up with logical and coherent theories etc. In other words, he needs to consider the sphere of thoughts/ideas and the associated patterns that lie behind history.

This is interesting in light of postmodernism and all that it entails: postmodernism seems to work, weirdly enough, under a positivist assumption as well - that all there is is external facts, i.e. empiricism/materialism. (That the postmodernists are mainly marxists seems rather fitting, because Marx was a materialist as well.) But then it embraces a scepticist view in addition to that: namely, that we cannot know reality, that we don't have direct access to reality because our senses screw it up. If you combine these two - empiricism/materialism and scepticism - you end up in a philosophical cul-de-sac, because you a) deny that there is a non-material realm of thought/ideas/spirit that transcends material reality and b) deny that you can know anything about material reality. This essentially turns human beings into subjective islands with no purpose and no connection to reality. All that's left is your whims and your narcissism - exactly what we see in today's postmodern nihilism.

Don't know if I got this right - but Collingwood is a stimulating read for sure!

Well I can't say for sure what we will ultimately take away from this book but it seems to me you are on the right track here. I was thinking about; what exactly is the C's Cosmology? The general framework, I think, is that the Universe is a school, and "all there is is lessons." I believe they even go so far as to say that's the only reason for anything to exist at all levels. So it seems we have all these people who are trying to figure out things from a materialistic dialectic. And it seems the more we learn and progress and think differently as a result, the more a philosophical angle or dialectic is needed to proceed into higher levels of thought and understanding. I mean the purely materialistic angle otherwise becomes unreasonable or even absurd. So yes this is all very stimulating and exciting! It will be fun to see where it all goes, or what comes from it out of our collective efforts. OSIT

 

[Laura]

Re: R. G. Collingwood: The Idea of History

I ordered a vintage paperback copy of The Idea of History off eBay yesterday morning, but this morning, while doing some more research about the book and the author, I realized there was a revised edition published in 1994.

Is there a huge difference between the two editions? Which edition are most you reading from?

I don't think there is much difference. I have the older edition.

 

[biala84]

Re: Gurdjieff's Primitive Cosmology



I'm still reading a book i just start to be truth :) I have already some idea about All That, but i would like to read a book till the end then give my opinion before, that's what i have to learn in that life time otherwise surely i have to repeat a circle :D

 

[Palinurus]

Re: R. G. Collingwood: The Idea of History

This is a Patristic doctrine: the Devil is defined by the early Christian writer Hippolytus as ho antitatton tois kosmikois.

Tried to find the translation of the Greek bolded part, but wasn't able to find it. Anyone an idea how that translates?

Thanks!

Google Translate gave me: "against the cosmic ones".

Literally it means: the opponent of the cosmic ones (i.e. cosmic forces, heavenly powers, angels etc.). In short: the universal adversary.

 

[Altair]

Re: R. G. Collingwood: The Idea of History

Among the many interesting things, so far Collingwood's discussion of the enlightenment stood out - powerful and insightful as the enlightenment thinkers might have been, they also based their view on some very wrong assumptions with which we still struggle today. Putting this in its proper historical context, as Collingwood does, is extremely fruitful - from today's perspective, we can see where the enlightenment went wrong and why, and of course what they got right. This is much more helpful than putting the enlightenment philosophy on a pedestral like, I guess, many of those "new enlightenment warriors" such as Dawkins & Co do. This seems rather backwards, actually.

Another thought I had regarding "critical history": Collingwood masterfully points out the errors in the critical approach to history (like textual analysis of historical documents and such), not because the method doesn't work, but because these people work under a positivist assumption: that history can and should be carried out like the natural sciences, i.e. "only the facts count". But this simply cannot be done, because a historian is not a scientists doing replicable experiments in a lab. The historian always has to choose which facts he studies for a reason; he has to interpret thoughts and motivations of historical actors; he has to judge historical developments and come up with logical and coherent theories etc. In other words, he needs to consider the sphere of thoughts/ideas and the associated patterns that lie behind history.

Yes, these "errors" and wrong assumptions are pretty obvious from our today's perspective because all the previous phases of development of historical thought are already embedded (as a part of previous developments) in our modern understanding of it (like Russian matryoshka doll). I think that we always have to consider the Zeitgeist of each epoch if we want to understand HOW people thought back then. I assume there were very few thinkers who were able to break out of the strict framework of the Zeitgeist and be really ahead of their time and when comparing materialistic aspect of G's teachings and the Zeitgeist of HIS epoch it seems that he was no exception to this rule and was highly influenced by ideas prevailing in his time.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Re: R. G. Collingwood: The Idea of History

I ordered a vintage paperback copy of The Idea of History off eBay yesterday morning, but this morning, while doing some more research about the book and the author, I realized there was a revised edition published in 1994.

Is there a huge difference between the two editions? Which edition are most you reading from?

I don't think there is much difference. I have the older edition.

Yep. 1994 edition includes a different introduction, and extra material. But the text of the book in between is the same (Parts I-V).