New History (Issue 3)

Author: Chen Heng, edited by Geng Xiangxin
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2004-12-01
Features: This issue mainly selects several articles of Collingwood from the "Collected Papers on the Philosophy of History" edited by Dibben, and also chooses several research articles from the numerous Western studies on Collingwood. Collingwood's "The Philosophy of History" and "The Nature and Purpose of the Philosophy of History" are general articles where he views history as an improvisation and, as always, emphasizes the importance of secondary thinking. "The Theory of Historical Cycles" and "Oswald Spengler's Theory of Historical Cycles" involve the long-standing theory of historical cycles and the once-famous German philosopher Spengler, whom Collingwood heavily mocked, comprehensively refuting the absolute necessity of historical morphology, but generally regarded historical cycle theory as a perspective-based perception, a function of the limitations of historical knowledge. Most of the research papers are critical. "Collingwood's Theory of History" is the result of the author's examination of Collingwood's works from the aspects of subject matter and methodology, and is generally recognized by Western academia as Collingwood's understanding. The author's original contribution still lies in reflecting on the issues. "Mr. Collingwood on Philosophical Method" aims to demand precision, where facts and concepts are intertwined, and the constant use of "Mr." leaves one uncertain of the correctness. "Collingwood: The Influence of His Father" and "Croce's Influence on Collingwood" involve a public case about the origins of Collingwood's theories—did Croce influence Collingwood? Are Croce and Collingwood in harmony? "Collingwood on Reflective Thinking" is self-explanatory, and reflective thinking is one of the hot topics discussed in Western academia. Dre's critique of the inconsistency of the reflective concept is worth attention. "Review of Collingwood's Criticism of Toynbee" makes one feel that Collingwood's critique has some shortcomings, as Toynbee's principle of naturalism may not be as strong. Meanwhile, "Was Collingwood Misunderstood?" is a declaration by a devoted defender, representing the trend in Western academia to rethink Collingwood's thought.