An autobiography

by R.G. Collingwood

Spine faded and foxing to the tanned page edges. Orders received by 3pm Sent from the UK that weekday.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Biography, Memoir, Nonfiction, Autobiography

172 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1939

About 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.

Reviews

[Grace · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ostensibly an autobiography, this is actually an account of the philosopher R. G. Collingwood's intellectual life. Seeing him (quickly) through his Kant-browsing childhood, it focuses principally on his 20s and 30s - presumably the period that he felt was most crucial in the development of his thinking. His ideas about meaning (it's all about context and the question that a proposition is answering), history (necessary if one is to think about the context of a philosopher's thought) and 'realism' (wrong) are outlined. His feelings about moral degeneration in the aftermath of the great war and with world war two imminent are expressed. Very readable but only recommended for those with a particular interest in the history of ideas.

[Marat M. Yavrumyan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Տեղ-տեղ վերջն է, մի տասը-տասնհինգ տարի առաջ պիտի կարդացած լինեի, լիքը բան փոխած կլիներ իմ մասնագիտական կյանքում։ Ոճն էլ է հավես, փիլիսոփայությունը սեփական կյանքի օրինակով ։)

[Dan Vine · Rating 5 out of 5]

I remember reading and being impressed with this book in my 20s. I am startled at the degree to which the ideas resonate to the point that I find I have been quoting him for years without knowing it. It brings home why I was foolish to have ever imagined I might have had a career in mainstream analytic philosophy.

[Abdullah Başaran · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very brilliant philosopher, very acute style of writing.

[George Siehl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Philosopher Robin Collingwood's autobiography is an interesting and wide-ranging account of his childhood and subsequent career. His interest, apart from philosophy, included archaeology, history, science, and, in the end politics. In several places he engages in some dense bits of philosophical examination but, most interesting, is his broader establishment of linkages between philosophy and other areas of study, notably natural science and history.

Collingwood spent much of his career at Oxford. His book describes the changing orientation of philosophy at that school over his career. The "Green School" of Thomas Hill Green posited a course of study "meant as a training for public life in the Church, at the Bar, in the Civil Service, and in Parliament." It incorporated such elements a moral and political philosophy. It was supplanted by a faculty, "realists" who rejected its approach. Colingwood studied under these "realists," but in turn disavowed their approach. He moved, independently, to a concentration on asking questions and doing research which answered those specific questions. He noted how his own field work in archaeology differed from many others. They would dig to see what they could find, he would dig only after deciding what he wanted to learn from his excavations. He succeeded in having his method become standard practice among English archaeologists.

Two chapters, on the history of philosophy and the philosophy of history, make interesting reading. Their content flows from his own departure from the "Realist" school. He did not share the fascination of many of his colleagues with the exemplar of natural science as a guide for study. Instead he found history a much more applicable source of guidance.

There is much to note and enjoy in this, often pithy, reflection on one philosopher's life. The library copy of of this 80-plus year old book which I read attests to this interest as it contains a number of markings and marginalia in varied hands and modes of notation. I recommend the book for those who are interested in another way of looking at life and study.

[Sinan Öner]

İngiliz Tarihçi Collingwood'un "Bir Özyaşamöyküsü", bir Tarihçi ile ilgili bilgiler edinmek için, tarihçiliğin bir Tarihçi'nin kişiliğinde, bir Tarihçi'nin "yaşamöyküsü"nde gelişmesini anlamak için çok değerli bir kitap, "Tarih Tasarımı" kitabıyla tarihyazımı metodolojisinde yeni yaklaşımlar üretmiş Collingwood'un tarihçilik eğitimi aldığı yılları, tarihçilik yaptığı yılları, tarih okullarında öğrencileriyle tarih dersleri yaptığı yılları anlattığı müthiş bir anlatı! Collingwood, tarihçiliği bir felsefe konusu olarak tartışmayı yayınladığı tüm kitaplarda ihmal etmeyen bir Tarihçi, bir "Tarih Filozofu" olmaktan kaçınmayan bir Tarihçi. Collingwood'a göre, bir Tarihçi yalnızca tarih olaylarını araştırmaz, aynı zamanda tarih olaylarını araştırma metodlarını tartışır, bir tarihçilik felsefesi ile tarihçiliğini yürütür, tarihçilikle ilgili bilgilerini uygularken tarihçiliğe felsefe bilgilerini getirir. Collingwood, Toynbee, Russell, Runciman gibi İngiliz tarihçiliğini dünyaya yayan Tarihçilerin tarihçilik yaptıkları bir sırada tarihçilik eğitimi almış, İngiliz tarihçiliğinin gelişmesinde yeni bir rol oynamıştı. Collingwood'un tarihçilikteki başarısının çocukluk yıllarından yaşlılığına tarihini "Bir Özyaşamöyküsü"nün sayfalarında okurken bir Tarihçi'yi -Herodotus'dan bugüne eski bir mesleğin uzmanlarını- açıklıkla kavrıyoruz.

[Kenney · Rating 5 out of 5]

So many things... Ok so he talks about philosophers being misunderstood because academici pull their arguments out of historical and or semantical context. And is then himself being misunderstood because a lot of academici only see black or white, 1 or 0, true or false, and nothing in betwixt. The main idea for which he still receives fame can be used in different disciplines as is put forth in this book, but (just like using the word God when discussing Spinoza) he uses the word history when he (as is written once or twice in this book) actually wants to use the same principle for a philosophy of consciousness, his own words 'a philosophy of becoming' would've been better than using 'history'. It is pretty sad that he starts by saying people are mostly interpreting philosophers wrong and then he himself, even in his lifetime, gets interpreted wrong because almost no one can follow his method. Brilliant man, I feel sad for only discovering him this late in life.

[Muaz Jalil · Rating 3 out of 5]

Did not like this book as much. He is critical of analytic philosophy and argues for a historical approach to everything. He rightly states history gives insight, not rules. But his Anglican religious tendencies are apparent. He argues that what Moore and Russell rebelled against was not British Hegelianism and argued it never dominated oxford. He criticizes James' Varieties for not explaining religion.

He makes an interesting point that philosophers are wrong to argue that there are philosophical problems of Type P, which Greeks, Schoolman, Sceptic, and Analytics tried to answer differently. Still, instead, they are P1, P2-P5, and historical myopia blurs their distinction.

But I think he makes an intentional fallacy when he states all history is the history of thought. And so historians are supposed to figure out what that person was thinking

[Blair · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not what most people would think of as an autobiography. Collingwood only touches on his life in very perfunctory ways (he was apparently extraordinarily precocious as a child) and this book really just traces his philosophical thinking, mainly about the philosophy of history. So it's not the most entertaining read, but it is nevertheless well worth checking out, not least for the final chapter on theory and practice as he reflects on the rise of fascism and the failures of the British government in the 1930s.

[Gilly Singh · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a singularly strange volume.

It is far from an autobiography although it weaves aspects of Collingwood's experiences throughout it. As the man says himself, it is a history of his thought rather than a narrative of his life. Even in those terms it is more of arrgument for his particular philosophical approach to Epistemology and a series of metaphilosophical questions.

I can't say I would recommend it unless you had an interest in these areas.

There is also the inclusion of aspects of the history of Oxford Philosophy pre A J Ayer and the Young Turks of the Analyticial "Revolution".

[Simon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some moments of sheer brilliance. More generally, quite interesting.

[An Te · Rating 3 out of 5]

Collingwood boasts great learning from self-schooling. I'd recommend this to those doing home-schooling, though you may not wish to be reading Kant before ones 8th birthday is done.

His formative years inform his philosophy of history, metaphysics and in part philosophy of religion, as he grapples with life.

I give a lower rating, partly because I have imbibed his best ideas through his preceding works and had the expectation that I would find a novel insight or two in this tome. Little did I find in addition. The main reason for the lower rating is that he did lament his knocks (literally) for his slighted physique which led him down the academic path and also his weakness. Perhaps I'm a little harsh here but I feel he could be a little more magnanimous than so. I could just be neglecting his humanity and his affections. We all have been slighted in our life's which has undeniably altered our course; it's an autobiography after all.

[Ferran Mestre · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bo com el pa.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE AUTHOR OF "THE IDEA OF HISTORY" EXPLAINS HIS THOUGHT DEVELOPMENT

Robin George Collingwood (1889-1943) was an English philosopher and historian, whose most famous books are 'The Idea of History: With Lectures 1926-1928' and 'An Essay on Metaphysics.'

He says in the Preface to this 1939 book, "The autobiography of a man whose business is thinking should be the story of his thought. I have written this book to tell what I think worth telling about the story of mine... I have written candidly, at times disapprovingly, about men whom I admire and love. If any of these should resent what I have written... my rule in writing books is ... that naming any one personally known to me is my way of thanking him for what I owe to his friendship, or his teaching, or his example."

He criticizes the Logical Positivists: "I think that this school, with all its ingenuity and pertinacity, is only building card-houses out of a pack of lies." (Pg. 52) After his experiences with weekly meetings of the Oxford Philosophical Society, he concluded, "I must do my own work by myself, and not expect my colleagues in the philosophical profession to give me any help." (Pg. 54-55)

He explains, "My life's work hitherto... has been in the main an attempt to bring about a rapprochement between philosophy and history." (Pg. 77) He adds, "The chief business of twentieth-century philosophy is to reckon with twentieth-century history." (Pg. 79) He recalls, "By about 1920 this was my first principle of a philosophy of history: that the past which an historian studies is not a dead past, but a past which in some sense is still living in the present." (Pg. 97)

Later, he observes, "I expressed this new conception of history in the phrase, 'all history is the history of thought.'... And there is nothing else except thought that can be the object of historical knowledge." (Pg. 110) He adds, "This gave me a second proposition: 'historical knowledge is the re-enactment in the historian's mind of the thought whose history he is studying.'" (Pg. 112) He elaborates, "If what the historian knows is past thoughts, and if he knows them by re-thinking them himself, it follows that the knowledge he achieves by historical inquiry is not knowledge of his situation... it is a knowledge of his situation which is at the same time knowledge of himself. In re-thinking what somebody else thought, he thinks it himself... He must be, in fact, a microcosm of all the history he can know. Thus his own self-knowledge is at the same time his knowledge of the world of human affairs... The answer was now clear and certain. The science of human affairs was history." (Pg. 114-115)

Collingwood's book is of interest to philosophers, of course, but of particular interest to students of the philosophy of history.

[N. N. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stephen Toulmin is maybe the most important analytic philosopher to be substantially influenced by Collingwood, and that influence shows in Toulmin's own work (which I have been reading lately and find quite interesting). But Toulmin's introduction to Collingwood's Autobiography is not very good. It doesn't add much context that can't be inferred from the text. It makes some comments about Collingwood and his philosophy which may be true but which certainly aren't proven here.

Furthermore, the handling of Collingwood's weird final section in which he denounces his philosophical opponents as cryptofascists is apologetic and unconvincing. Toulmin says: "In a Britain that was finally pulling itself together and girding for the struggle with Hitler, Collingwood's bitterness was hard for his Oxford colleagues to stomach. Subsequent historians who have studied the political role of All Souls College in the 1930s, as an intellectual base for the 'appeasers', may see his comments in a different light [....] All in all, however, the record of Oxford academics during the early and middle 1930s, in standing up against the enemies of intellectual liberty and representative government at home and abroad, was not so very much better than the record of their counterparts at Heidelberg and Gottingen." Why limit ourselves to Heidelberg and Gottingen? It seems a bit unfair to compare the performance of British academics to German academics without mentioning Freiburg, where Martin Heidegger, at the time an enthusiastic Nazi, became rector a few months after Hitler assumed the office of chancellor.

Collingwood's Autobiography is a weird text. There is no need to try to domesticate it by arguing that Collingwood's strange political comments at the end aren't actually so strange. The philosophy is strange too. Anybody who reads this should be prepared to get something weird. Failing that, they at least should not have the weirdness unconvincingly explained away before they start.

It is better to just get a digital version of the 1939 edition, which is very easy to pirate or borrow...

[Robert C. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Collingwood is a remarkable and independent thinker. His early life was home schooled by his father, a painter and archaeologist, who was closely associated with Ruskin. He was primarily a philosopher, but also did research into history and participated in archeological digs, both of which helped form his philosophical views. He understood very clearly that the questions you ask make all the difference. You can neither understand an ancient philosopher nor an historical event without asking what problem the philosopher was asking (and what presuppositions he had) or what problem a historical figure was trying to solve when he or she was making their decisions. To understand someone's thought you need to understand the historical context of the ideas and culture in which they are embedded. Collingwood played a key role in seeing a need for and developing a philosophy of history and was also interested in art. He spoke fluent German, French, Italian, Spanish, Latin, and Ancient Greek. This is a fun book to read. He explains his own intellectual history, how and why his thinking developed the way it did. He has very interesting ideas and views things from his own unique point of view that directly grew out of his own experiences in life. It is a fairly short book, written near the end of his life, which was in his 50's.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Collingwood was a maverick philosopher. His autobiography is fascinating as we get a real insight into how this novel thinker developed. If Gerard Durrell's childhood was among animals - Collingwood spent (not exclusively) his among ideas. Of all the mdern philosophers he is the one I return to often.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

At first I thought that this author really had no business calling this an "autobiography" due to its many elisions, but I understood the structure better once be elucidated his "question-answer" philosophy. Once you can learn to "think" like a historic personage, you can pose and answer the questions that may come to their minds as certain situations unfold.

[Freyr · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hay un poco de autobiografía en ese análisis de las escuelas del pensamiento histórico creo que se le olvidó hablar de él mismo