The relation between practice and theory. Robin George Collingwood vs. Michael Oakeshott
Keywords:
Robin George Collingwood, Michael Oakeshott, practice, theory, relationship between practice and theoryAbstract
In my paper I discuss the relation between theory and practice as it is differently conceived by Robin George Collingwood and Michael Oakeshott. It is a relationship of interdependence in Collingwood and, conversely, one of independence in Oakeshott. I agree with Collingwood’s critics that his argument may not always be right. Still I cannot accept that there can be an authentic philosopher that who does not put into practices the theories that he embraces.
References
R. G. Collingwood, An Autobiography, Oxford University Press, 1982, for the Romanian translation O autobiografie filosofică, Trei Editure, Bucureşti,1998.
R. G. Collingwood, An Essay on Metaphysics (1940), Oxford University Press, U.K., 1998.
R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of History (1946), Oxford University Press, 1994, revised and expanded, with an introduction by Jan Van Der Dussen.
R. G. Collingwood, Speculum Mentis or The Map of Knowledge (1924), Oxford University Press, U. K., 1970.
Connelly, James, "Theory and Practice in the Philosophy of R. G. Collingwood", Political Studies Association Conference, University of Swansea, Aprilie 2008.
Donagan, Alan, The Later Philosophy of R. G. Collingwood, Oxford University Press, 1962.
Oakeshott, Michael, Experience and its Modes, Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Oakeshott, Michael, On Human Conduct, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990.
Podoksik, Efraim, In Defence of Modernity. Vision and Philosophy in Michael Oakeshott, Imprint Academic, U.K., 2003.
Platon, Opere V, Ştiinţifică şi enciclopedică Editure, Bucureşti, 1986.
