Idea de la naturaleza

by R.G. Collingwood

Historia del desarrollo de la comprensión de lo natural a través de todos los tiempos, que inicia en la Edad Clásica, pasa por el Renacimiento y llega hasta la Edad Moderna. Las preguntas e investigaciones que tienen como objeto el conocimiento natural o ciencia de la naturaleza constituyen, desde la perspectiva del autor, un testimonio de la existencia del hombre; la idea de la naturaleza adquiere la realidad de la historicidad porque el hombre se construye y elabora su mundo a partir de la historia. Luego de más de medio siglo transcurrido desde su primera edición, y a la luz de los descubrimientos científicos que Collingwood no pudo ver, esta obra pondrá el lector en contacto con los dramáticos cambios que ha sufrido nuestra idea de la naturaleza.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Nature, Technology, Ecology, Science

Paperback

First published January 1, 1945

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

[Steve Dewey · Rating 2 out of 5]

Gah. I found this a tough read. Too gnomic. Too assertive. Assumed I'd know too much. Quite happy to drop into Greek without translation. I also found it tendentious, seemingly preferring interpretations of natural philosophy that retrieved God. And, yes, it was written in the 1940s, but I felt it didn't understand the nature of modern science and philosophy of science.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh - the book appears to have been based on lectures he had given, and was published posthumously. Perhaps had he been alive he might have fleshed the text out. Still, the book is what it is... to me, elusive...

[Vasil]

По стъпките на изследването ми за човешката природа, реших да се спра на една по-обща постановка, която може да даде контекст за природата изобщо - и така в ръцете ми се озова съвсем новичкото издание на "идеята за природата". Не открих в нея това, което търсех, но пък се радвам, че успях да се запозная с будния ум на Колингууд, чието име години наред срещах, но все отминавах.

Тази книга, както сам казва авторът, не е холистично историческо проследяване на концепцията за това какво е природа, а по-скоро пътуване във времето и човешката мисъл с няколко по-важни спирки. Първата половина от книгата е заблуждаваща - тя разглежда предсократическата мисъл, Платон и Аристотел, а достъпният език е съчетан с на моменти поетическа художественост. След това обаче се намесват Декарт, Кант, Хегел, Нютон, Лайбниц и работата става по-сериозна; тонът е по-научен, идеите стават по-сложни за схващане и немалко пъти ми се наложи да препрочитам абзаци, оставайки все пак несигурен дали напълно съм ги проумял. Последната част пък намесва и достиженията на физиката след Айнщайн, което допълнително усложнява разбирането за незапознатия.

В крайна сметка "Идеята за природата" е любопитно четиво, което препоръчвам, но читателят трябва да има едно наум, че скромните 250 страници, започващи с преплетени цитати от Блейк и прозрения от порядъка на това, че триъгълникът е съвсем искрен и никога не лъже, хич не са за подценяване като сложност на съдържанието.

[DeaFlourishment · Rating 4 out of 5]

Es un gran recorrido por ideas clásicas y formas de comprensión de la naturaleza en un enfoque filosófico occidental. Estaría maravilloso que las visiones históricas reconciliaran otras coordenadas geográficas. Sospecho que la idea de naturaleza de países latinoamericanos y asiáticos podrían ser diversas.

[Jean Paul Govè]

By the first chapter already Collingwood makes some claims that I find dubious, for example that the modern cosmological view has no problem with change and does not, like the Greek and Renaissance cosmology, attempt to discover changeless principles behind the change, and just like Greek and Renaissance cosmology had analogies in man and machine respectively, the Modern cosmology has an analogy with human history, in which historians have not tried to discover rules and laws governing but simply have documented pure change.

It should be obvious to most who are familiar with modern historians (up to 1940s) that most of them were veritably obsessed with discovering laws behind the change. All the great historians thought of rules to describe the changes they described, for example, the cyclical flowering and decline of civilization or attempts to find instances of historical recurrences and draw conclusions from them. The great ideologies were historiographically based - liberalism less rigorously so than Marxism, but when Bolshevik Communism failed in Russia, it was liberal historians who touted "the end of history".

And physics is also certainly, in a similar fashion, obsessed with principles behind the change. The idea still persists that what changes cannot strictly be knowable, but the principle behind how change happens can be. The idea of "Laws of nature" exists in physics, as well as a drive to discover the Theory of Everything, which says nothing if it does not say that physics is principle-based, and attempts like the other cosmologies to discover the changeless behind the change-full. Later on in the book, I'll compare what Collingwood has to say about modern cosmology with quantum physics, and its ideas and discoveries with regards to radical change. I wonder how much he knew about it. Still, prominent physicists such as Albert Einstein reacted badly to quantum physics primarily because of its implications of radical change. And the way forward seems to be in a re-interpretation of quantum physics onto a more orderly framework in order to match with Newtonian physics' orderliness, and retain quantum physics' powers of prediction.

Collingwood's own descriptions, at the end of the first chapter, of minimum space and time, while very dubious -he simply describes a theory according to how it fits in his idea of a "radical change" cosmology- are in themselves attempts at defining change in terms of changeless principles.

[MelteM Ural · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kargo kolisinden çıkardım ve ilk izlenim olarak onu yemek istedim. Kelimesi kelimesine, TDK’nin “ağızda çiğneyerek yutmak” olarak tanımladığı şeyi ona yapmak istedim. Neden? Çünkü böyle tatlı kapak tasarımı olmaz olsun. Karnımı doyurduktan sonra okumaya başladım, tehlike geçmişti. Okudum, elime geçen kalemi aldım, okudum, elime geçen kalemi aldım, okudum, elime geçen kalemi aldım… Son tahlilde, hemen hemen bütün sayfalarında altı çizili satırlar, işaretlenmiş paragraflar, alınmış notlar ve çeşitli kalemlerle yapılmış tuhaf tuhaf hareketler var. Görseniz dersiniz ki, güzel kardeşim keşke yeseydin. Neden? Çünkü böyle dadaist okuma tasarımı olmaz olsun. Giriş ısırığı veriyorum, merak eden tamamını edinip yer: Collingwood ile birlikte üç kozmolojik akımı incik cincik ediyoruz. 1. Doğa dünyası, düzenli olarak devinen canlı ve rasyonel bir organizmadır; diyen Yunan Doğa Görüşü. 2. Saçma saçma konuşmayın, doğa dünyası kendi devinimlerini rasyonel bir şekilde düzenleyemez, dolayısıyla o bir organizma falan değil, dışarıdan bir yöneticinin zekâsıyla kurgulanmış bir makinedir; diyen Renaissance (dönemsel olarak aslında Barok) Doğa Görüşü. 3. O kadar yaşadık ettik gördük geçirdik, artık tarihsel bir anlayışla yaklaşmalı, bilimsel olarak bilinen doğa dünyasının süreçlerini inceleyerek evrimi anlamalıyız; diyen Modern Doğa Görüşü. Neden? Çünkü hayır, 2 numaranın düşündüğü gibi bu bir makine olamaz, makine dediğin şey bitmiş bir üründür, kapalı bir sistemdir, değişemez. Oysa evet, bir değişim var, ama 1 numaranın düşündüğü gibi döngüsel değil, ilerleyici bir değişim bu. Falan filan…

[Naeem · Rating 5 out of 5]

Collingwood believes that philosophy should be well written. Of all the philosophers I have read, he writes the most clearly.

Idea of Nature is the second in a trilogy: Essay on Philosophical Method is the most succinct thing I have ever read on dialectics -- although Collingwood never uses that word. (A good companion would be the first 75 or so pages of W.T. Stace's The Philosophy of Hegel. The last of the three is the posthumously published (edited by Knox?) The Idea of History.

All three are must reads for anyone interested in dialectics, the meaning of nature, and the history of ideas.

The Idea of Nature is a philosophic history of how (Western) philosophy has conceived nature. So called Environmentalists might want to read this book so that they can stand a chance in an argument against anyone who thinks at all.

The trilogy and this book in particular can be foundational for anyone trying to understand the Hegel/Marx matrix.

[Hasan Fırat · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Bu kitapta, bilgisizliğimin ve tembelliğimin izin verdiği ölçüde, ilk Yunanlılardan günümüze dek doğa tasarımının tüm tarihini değilse de, o tarihin, hakkında öteki dönemlere göre daha az bilgisiz olduğum üç dönemiyle ilgili kimi noktalarını işledim. Bir çeşit sona ulaştığıma göre, bir uyarı ile bitirmem gerek. Uyarı, sona ulaşmanın bir sonuç olmadığıdır. Kendi felsefesini son saydığı yalanını önceden yalanlayan Hegel, tarih felsefesi üzerine incelemesinde, “Bilinç buraya kadar gelmiştir" diye yazmıştır. Benim de şimdi benzer bir biçimde ”Bilim buraya kadar gelmiştir” demem gerek. Söylenen herşey bir arasözdür yalnızca. "

[Seekers of Unity · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an interesting work going through various conceptions of nature throughout history. He gave a very nice explanation about the enterprise of metaphysics early on in the book that was very clarifying and elucidating of the basic structure and cause of metaphysical thinking, twas helpful.

If you like books like this you'll love my project:
http://youtube.com/c/seekersofunity?s...

[Humza · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a good book! I enjoyed it as a companion to Koestler's The Sleepwalkers.

There's less focus here about the personalities who had an influence on natural science (something I enjoyed from Koestler's book), but I appreciated seeing the changing metaphysics behind Koestler's description of the changing physics and seeing Collingwood tackle the post-Newtonian period (which Koestler understandably left out from his huge book as the period was too young).

[Robert Heckner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent.

[Brother Gregory Rice, SOLT · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clear, digestible, and interesting history of philosophy in regards to the question of nature and cosmology. Would love to read more of the author.

[Victor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really good read for an overview of some of the major views on Nature throughout history, though I have to say I enjoyed more the little side commentaries and thoughtful idea of the author than the schools of thought he was talking about (especially in the later chapters).
The reason I'm not giving it 5 stars is because I felt that he was pretty boring in explaining the latter part of the book on the modern view of nature, as opposed to the first chapters which were great.
Here are some nice quotes:

"A man who has never reflected on the principles of his work has not achieved a grown-up man's attitude towards it; a scientist who was never philosophized about his science can never be more than a second-hand, imitative, journeyman scientist. A man who has never enjoyed a certain type of experience cannot reflect upon it; a philosopher who has never studied and worked at natural science, cannot philosophize about it without making a fool of himself.[...] I know that I am likely to make a fool of myself; bu the work of bridge-building (between science and philosophy) must go on."

"[...]the idea of absolute creation, of a creative act which presupposes nothing at all, whether a pre-existing matter or a pre-existing form, is an idea which originated with Christianity and constitutes the main characteristic differentiation distinguishing the Christian idea of creation from the Hellenic [...]"

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE PHILOSOPHER/HISTORIAN LOOKS AT A “SCIENTIFIC” TOPIC PHILOSOPHICALLY

Robin George Collingwood (1889-1943) was an English philosopher and historian, who wrote other books such as 'An Essay on Metaphysics,' 'The Idea of History,' 'The Idea of Nature,' 'An Autobiography,' etc.

This book was published posthumously, and was mostly written in 1933-1934; he presented much of the material in lectures in 1934 and 1937. He had begun revising the manuscript for publication at the time of his death.

He wrote in the first chapter, “in the nineteenth century a fashion grew up of separating natural scientists and philosophers into two professional bodies, each knowing little about the other’s work and having little sympathy with it. It is a bad fashion that has done harm to both sides, and on both sides there is an earnest desire to see the last of it and to bridge the gulf of misunderstanding it has created. The bridge must be begun from both ends; and I, as a member of the philosophical profession, can best begin at my end by philosophizing about what experience I have of natural science.” (Pg. 3)

He states, “This new conception of nature, the evolutionary conception based on the analogy of history, has certain characteristics which follow necessarily from the central idea on which it is based. It may be useful to mention a few of these. i. Change no longer cyclical, but progressive… ii. Nature no longer mechanical. A negative result… was the abandonment of the mechanical conception of nature. It is impossible to describe one and the same thing … as a machine and as developing or evolving.

"Something which is developing may build itself machines, but it cannot be a machine. On the evolutionary theory… there may be machines in nature, but nature itself cannot be a machine, and cannot either be described as a whole or completely described as to any of its parts in mechanical terms… iii. Teleology reintroduced. A positive corollary of this negative result is the reintroduction into natural science of an idea which the mechanical view of nature had banished: the idea of teleology.” (Pg. 13-15)

He argues, “The conception of development is fatal to materialism… development implies an immaterial cause. If a seed is really developing into a plant, and merely changing into it by pure chance owing to the random impact of suitable particles of matter from outside, this development is controlled by something not material, namely the form of a plant… which is the Platonic idea of the plant as the formal cause of the full-grown plant and the final cause of the process by which the seed grows into it.” (Pg. 83-84)

He asserts, “On the ground of philosophy, I think it is fair to say that the conception of vital process as distinct from mechanical or chemical change has come to stay, and has revolutionized our conception of nature. That many eminent biologists have not yet accepted it need cause no surprise. In the same way, the anti-Aristotelian physics … was rejected by many distinguished scientists of that age… who were making important contributions to the advancement of knowledge.” (Pg. 136)

He observes, “But although the doctrine expressed by scientists like Eddington and Jeans that nature or the material world depends on God is welcome as marking their rejection both of materialism and of subjectivism, these are merely negative merits. If the doctrine is to stand for anything positive, we must know not only that God is something other than either matter or the human mind, but what that other is. For Eddington… the non-material reality on which material nature depends is mind: that is to say, he conceives God as mind.” (Pg. 156-157)

He says, “This evolutionary process is theoretically infinite. At present, it has reached the state of mind; but it only goes forward at all because at every stage there is a forward movement or impulse… towards the realization of the next… This next higher order of quality, as yet unrealized, is deity, and thus God is the being towards whose emergence the evolutionary nisus of mind is directed.” (Pg. 161) He concludes, “that is why I answer the question, ‘Where do we go from here?’ by saying, ‘We go from the idea of nature to the idea of history.’” (Pg. 177)

Although the work is somewhat disjointed, it will be of keen interest to anyone studying Collingwood’s philosophy.

[Alper Yılmaz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book begs the question, "why can't all philosophy be as clear and well-written as this?" Sure, there are obscurities such as the liberal use of untranslated Greek/Latin phrases and the general difficulty of the ideas themselves, but these are either small or wholly natural obstacles in understanding what Collingwood is saying and attempting. His style is as empty of technical jargon as a text like this can get, and his prowess in getting to the heart of complex arguments and then presenting that core in a digestible manner is seriously impressive. Add to that how he develops and elaborates his own viewpoint throughout, and you've got a masterful philosophy book. There are omissions, some glaring (no mention of Islamic philosophers), some seemingly ideological (very few materialists), some presumably born out of unfamiliarity on the author's part (Böhme?), but the line of thought that is developed throughout the work still manages to flow logically and without interruption, which is an impressive feat.

[Keith Price · Rating 5 out of 5]

I bought this book somewhere between 35 and 40 or more years ago, have had it in my burgeoning collection ever since and for some reason never quite got around to reading it until now. I was prompted to have a look by thinking more deeply than before about the meaning of 'naturalism' as opposed to mere 'materialism'. Some people I know profess to be non-materialist naturalists and I wanted to be able to provide a better critique than I had so far of this position or positions.

Well, despite the fact that it was published posthumously 74 years ago from a manuscript Collingwood wrote in the late 1930s, I have to regard it as a philosophical classic - a gem of a book with deep insights in at least every other page! Even his exposition of the Ionian Pre-Socratics makes much more sense to me than anything else I have ever read or listened to on the subject. Usually, they are just those odd individuals who thought the world was just water, or air, or fire etc. Collingwood shows us WHY they thought that way, why exactly it didn't work and how it relates critically to what went after.

The exposition unfolds a bit like a detective novel after that, through Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Renaissance, the scientific revolution, Idealism (his section on Hegel I regard as some of the most insightful commentary I have read - very exciting!) and right through into the new physics and early twentieth century cosmology (Alexander and Whitehead). I will be drawing on this material heavily in the near future. Highly recommended!

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nature, not the nature of the national parks but the nature of form and substance, mind and body, matter and energy, as seen by the Greeks, the Renaissance, and modern science and philosophy. Granted it is a brief survey and stops with the philosophy of Whitehead but has enough content to stimulate thought and further reading.

[Sara-Maria · Rating 5 out of 5]

prep for anticipated frustration in environmental politics class