Title
Hervorming of euthanasie van de metafysica : R.G. Collingwood versus Wilhelm Dilthey over de historische rol van de metafysica Hervorming of euthanasie van de metafysica : R.G. Collingwood versus Wilhelm Dilthey over de historische rol van de metafysica
Author
Faculty/Department
Faculty of Arts. Philosophy
Publication type
article
Publication
Leuven :Hoger Instituut voor Wijsbegeerte ,
Subject
Philosophy
Source (journal)
Tijdschrift voor filosofie / Hoger Instituut voor Wijsbegeerte [Leuven] - Leuven, 1962, currens
Volume/pages
77(2015) :2 , p. 273-307
ISSN
0040-750X
ISI
000369119500003
Carrier
E
Target language
English (eng)
Dutch (dut)
Full text (Publishers DOI)
Affiliation
University of Antwerp
Abstract
R.G. Collingwood greatly admired Diltheys philosophy of history. In this article, I show that despite the obvious affinities between both authors, their views on the historical role of philosophy are clearly divergent. I focus on one topic in particular in their writings, namely, the status of metaphysics and its relation to history. Whereas Dilthey argues that the awareness of the historicity of metaphysics and its psychological-hermeneutical foundation inevitably leads to the euthanasia of metaphysics, Collingwood defends the possibility of a reform of metaphysics into a historical discipline, based on a logic of question and answer. The analysis of the difference between these two thinkers with respect to the role of metaphysics consists of three steps. First, I situate Diltheys critique of metaphysics into the whole of his oeuvre, followed by a presentation of his solution to the metaphysical antinomy. Second, I focus on the role of Collingwoods reform of metaphysics and on his solution to the metaphysical antinomy. To that end, I make use of Collingwoods recently (partially) released unpublished manuscripts so as to shed greater light on his rejection of Diltheys understanding of the historical role and defi nition of metaphysics. Finally, I reformulate the diff ering statuses of metaphysics between these two thinkers by relating their divergent views to their respective understandings of human fi nitude.
E-info
https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/iruaauth/4f9ce0/245cb00c15f.pdf
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000369119500003&DestLinkType=RelatedRecords&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000369119500003&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=ef845e08c439e550330acc77c7d2d848
Handle