Excellent read! Having experienced more modern history than most reading here (Turning 86 in a few days.) I often find myself with a raised eyebrow upon hearing what happened way back then in the sixties or forties, let alone the turn of the 19th century having heard first hand from those that lived it.
The facts are important but the mind (Mind, as a collective mind reads a bit rough to me, perhaps Durkheim's collective conscious?) and myth more so. I still remember from high school the date 1066. Such give one a chronology and anchor (Why yes, in the broad scope of things that was after Caesar noted Gaul was divided in three parts but before Churchill saved jolly England, so I have it loosely fixed in time.) but that the battle of Hastings was a family feud makes it interesting and the result England changing and subsequently world changing.
More important still is to realize that science is frequently no longer science but the cobbling together of influential money people backslapping each other to keep the honeypot full.
But perhaps most importantly is the notion that we can frequently misread the minds of the actors of the history we seek to understand, and attribute to them the most important things they said to actions we are sympathetic to, while ignoring the actions taken. Think of it as the dichotomy of what a politician says versus what they actually do. Same problem. Most historians who attempt to reinvigorate what is referenced as the philosophical mind into history's study are in actuality just taking modern day prejudices and attempting to play it backwards to satisfy their own biases. Nothing is more glaring of this modern day failing than the infatuation with the 1619 project.
I do want to know the why behind the what, and the motivation behind the why. But increasingly, there are very few people I trust to give me that perspective.
In philosophy there is no dichotomy of "realism" vs "idealism". You explained Kant well and hegel correctly but you then conflated psychology and rationalism with idealism the latter which kant infamously limited.
Everyone is a realist about something. It's just used for analytic philosophy position because they reify negative objects and have a rather unreal way to relate the two which makes conversation a hassle sometimes especially in moral realism. You definitely mean materialism but that's not a great way to interpret the multiple sciences that were developing, philosophical positions etc. Descartes was definitely what you would consider an idealist. He took the material leaning geometry and founded it in the more abstract algebra with the Cartesian coordinate system. He attempted a purely rational science but it never worked out. Similarly Newton and Bacon were hardly materialists, they were alchemists from neoplatonist renaissance influences which excited everyone to see the end of scholastic science.
Besides that, defining "realism" in the negation of "idealism" isn't an accurate definition but saying it is what is concerned with "reality" (out there) when nobody can define reality by definition isn't going to grasp the thought processes happening. Also what people think is usually explainable in the values they hold. There's no reason we have to accept our mind is some unmediated, extradimensional pocket that we can refer to. I mean what is a mind? What is free will? The latter ends up being an adhoc circular definition (e.g. "the ability to choose to do what we can choose to do").
Most philosophers were not idealists. That's very much an Enlightenment concept. Aristotle and Plato and pretty much anyone else accepted our minds are mediated by something and we can't necessarily trust them and they'd have a whole metaphysics which would mediate the value of thinking. Obviously everyone thinking is not simply going to converge.
I do agree there are different concepts of history we should look at but we need categories which give good explanatory power and we need an axiology to determine what is the measurement or value of what that good would be.
What I described are general thrusts of thought, or thought complexes, and I think there is a lot of truth to it. I know we can get into the weeds of all the very nuanced positions (you could raise similar objections about my use of positivism here etc.) but this is not what this article is about. That being said, thanks for the comment, something to ponder there.
The minute history becomes a mind reading exercise, it loses its credibility. I love history and love reading history, but facts are important, first hand accounts, written opinions, treaties, and alliances tells one much without pretending to know what they’re “thinking”. That becomes manipulation and I then consider the source and try to distinguish the facts from the suppositions. Not to mention perceptions are numerous and there’s always a backstory, an agenda, something to be gained primarily from the historian’s perspective. Then there’s the publishers and academicians influence. And that’s a whole other article. Tricky to say the least.
It's not about mind-reading without fact, it's about using one's own mind with all it's got, by looking at the sources, to infer the thoughts and motivations of people in the past, just as you described it. But this isn't a dry affair: you can literally rethink the thoughts of other people, letting them fill your mind by way of immersion in the sources. But yes, all of this is tricky indeed.
MissLadyK - We do "history with consequences" all of the time - called "trials" - and indeed, "Mind" is a big part of it... *mens rea* anyone? Reckless indifference? Beyond a reasonable doubt? We put a finite time limit on the preservation, and presentation, of evidence in these (hi)stories, as well. The govt even gets to make some of these histories secret! (Wouldn't you like to know the histories of the people that have been FISA'ed?) Or are those irrelevant to "history" because govt says so and needs to keep it secret?
Kennedy Assassination anyone?? How different would the condition of the modern mind be if we knew who actually whacked JFK? And had an opportunity to interrogate their motives with available evidence.
Luc - this article got you a new subscriber. Well done. Illuminating.
I took a look at your writing and thought about how Collingwood’s work could be applied to students studying Leadership with the goal of developing leadership skills. I asked Chat GPT to generate a list of 10 distinctly different leadership beliefs or principles that the students would discuss in small groups – and to categorize them into a mix of both absolute and relative presuppositions.
I was just thinking about how to help others identify, examine and critique their own presuppositions.
So according to ChatGPT 4o:
Absolute Presuppositions:
1. “Leaders must always prioritize the well-being of the group over personal interests.”
o This belief assumes that leadership is inherently self-sacrificial and focused on collective goals rather than individual success.
2. “Effective leadership is based on the ability to exert control and maintain authority.”
o Assumes that control is a fundamental quality of leadership, which could influence management style and decision-making processes.
3. “Great leaders are born, not made.”
o Assumes that leadership qualities are innate and cannot be cultivated or developed through learning and experience.
4. “Emotional intelligence is the most critical skill for successful leadership.”
o This belief asserts that the capacity to understand and manage emotions is more essential than technical skills or intellectual capacity in leadership roles.
5. “Leaders must always be visionary and inspire others toward a future goal.”
o Assumes that vision and inspiration are non-negotiable qualities for any effective leader, regardless of the context or type of organization.
Relative Presuppositions:
6. “Leadership effectiveness depends on context and situation.”
o Suggests that leadership is not a fixed set of traits or behaviors but is situational and varies depending on the circumstances, organizational culture, or external environment.
7. “Leaders should prioritize results over relationships when making decisions.”
o A belief that results matter more than the emotional or relational well-being of the team. This is relative, as it may change depending on the type of organization or the situation at hand.
8. “Leaders should always involve team members in decision-making processes.”
o This belief highlights a participative approach to leadership but can be debated or revised depending on the urgency or complexity of the decisions.
9. “Conflict should be avoided in teams to ensure cohesion and productivity.”
o This is a presupposition that can be questioned, as some leadership models suggest that managed conflict can enhance creativity and problem-solving.
10. “Leaders should be visible and present to be effective.”
o Assumes that physical or symbolic presence is crucial for leadership, but this can be contested, especially in remote or digital work environments.
Ngl the Christian Nationalists have this principle nailed. The liberal public school mythology is that the founding fathers wanted freedom of religion for hindus and satanists. The Christian Nationalist counter-myth (which is also more true) is that the founding fathers were vast majority protestants who wanted a rich diversity of protestant denominations allowed but not much else (true), and that states had their own state churches (true) and that protestant greatness settled and built America (true). However the mythologizing of these true points makes the history of armchair intellectuals and aristocratic farmers and small town judges more epic. E.g: Washington as Cincinnatus, John Adams quotes, Johnny Appleseed as a traveling preacher, Teddy Roosevelt-core aesthetics.
Excellent read! Having experienced more modern history than most reading here (Turning 86 in a few days.) I often find myself with a raised eyebrow upon hearing what happened way back then in the sixties or forties, let alone the turn of the 19th century having heard first hand from those that lived it.
The facts are important but the mind (Mind, as a collective mind reads a bit rough to me, perhaps Durkheim's collective conscious?) and myth more so. I still remember from high school the date 1066. Such give one a chronology and anchor (Why yes, in the broad scope of things that was after Caesar noted Gaul was divided in three parts but before Churchill saved jolly England, so I have it loosely fixed in time.) but that the battle of Hastings was a family feud makes it interesting and the result England changing and subsequently world changing.
"True thought breeds more true thought."
I love this and also find it to be true. Going deeper leads us to going deepers
Excellent tour de force of the role of mind in understanding history.
More important still is to realize that science is frequently no longer science but the cobbling together of influential money people backslapping each other to keep the honeypot full.
But perhaps most importantly is the notion that we can frequently misread the minds of the actors of the history we seek to understand, and attribute to them the most important things they said to actions we are sympathetic to, while ignoring the actions taken. Think of it as the dichotomy of what a politician says versus what they actually do. Same problem. Most historians who attempt to reinvigorate what is referenced as the philosophical mind into history's study are in actuality just taking modern day prejudices and attempting to play it backwards to satisfy their own biases. Nothing is more glaring of this modern day failing than the infatuation with the 1619 project.
I do want to know the why behind the what, and the motivation behind the why. But increasingly, there are very few people I trust to give me that perspective.
‘Check out his “The Idea of History” if you are interested in this sort of thing.‘
As if one can simply ‘check out’ Collingwood 🤣
Ha, we should approach such things cheerfully!
Excellent piece!
Thank you.
In philosophy there is no dichotomy of "realism" vs "idealism". You explained Kant well and hegel correctly but you then conflated psychology and rationalism with idealism the latter which kant infamously limited.
Everyone is a realist about something. It's just used for analytic philosophy position because they reify negative objects and have a rather unreal way to relate the two which makes conversation a hassle sometimes especially in moral realism. You definitely mean materialism but that's not a great way to interpret the multiple sciences that were developing, philosophical positions etc. Descartes was definitely what you would consider an idealist. He took the material leaning geometry and founded it in the more abstract algebra with the Cartesian coordinate system. He attempted a purely rational science but it never worked out. Similarly Newton and Bacon were hardly materialists, they were alchemists from neoplatonist renaissance influences which excited everyone to see the end of scholastic science.
Besides that, defining "realism" in the negation of "idealism" isn't an accurate definition but saying it is what is concerned with "reality" (out there) when nobody can define reality by definition isn't going to grasp the thought processes happening. Also what people think is usually explainable in the values they hold. There's no reason we have to accept our mind is some unmediated, extradimensional pocket that we can refer to. I mean what is a mind? What is free will? The latter ends up being an adhoc circular definition (e.g. "the ability to choose to do what we can choose to do").
Most philosophers were not idealists. That's very much an Enlightenment concept. Aristotle and Plato and pretty much anyone else accepted our minds are mediated by something and we can't necessarily trust them and they'd have a whole metaphysics which would mediate the value of thinking. Obviously everyone thinking is not simply going to converge.
I do agree there are different concepts of history we should look at but we need categories which give good explanatory power and we need an axiology to determine what is the measurement or value of what that good would be.
Interesting article, have a good one.
What I described are general thrusts of thought, or thought complexes, and I think there is a lot of truth to it. I know we can get into the weeds of all the very nuanced positions (you could raise similar objections about my use of positivism here etc.) but this is not what this article is about. That being said, thanks for the comment, something to ponder there.
The minute history becomes a mind reading exercise, it loses its credibility. I love history and love reading history, but facts are important, first hand accounts, written opinions, treaties, and alliances tells one much without pretending to know what they’re “thinking”. That becomes manipulation and I then consider the source and try to distinguish the facts from the suppositions. Not to mention perceptions are numerous and there’s always a backstory, an agenda, something to be gained primarily from the historian’s perspective. Then there’s the publishers and academicians influence. And that’s a whole other article. Tricky to say the least.
It's not about mind-reading without fact, it's about using one's own mind with all it's got, by looking at the sources, to infer the thoughts and motivations of people in the past, just as you described it. But this isn't a dry affair: you can literally rethink the thoughts of other people, letting them fill your mind by way of immersion in the sources. But yes, all of this is tricky indeed.
MissLadyK - We do "history with consequences" all of the time - called "trials" - and indeed, "Mind" is a big part of it... *mens rea* anyone? Reckless indifference? Beyond a reasonable doubt? We put a finite time limit on the preservation, and presentation, of evidence in these (hi)stories, as well. The govt even gets to make some of these histories secret! (Wouldn't you like to know the histories of the people that have been FISA'ed?) Or are those irrelevant to "history" because govt says so and needs to keep it secret?
Kennedy Assassination anyone?? How different would the condition of the modern mind be if we knew who actually whacked JFK? And had an opportunity to interrogate their motives with available evidence.
Luc - this article got you a new subscriber. Well done. Illuminating.
I took a look at your writing and thought about how Collingwood’s work could be applied to students studying Leadership with the goal of developing leadership skills. I asked Chat GPT to generate a list of 10 distinctly different leadership beliefs or principles that the students would discuss in small groups – and to categorize them into a mix of both absolute and relative presuppositions.
I was just thinking about how to help others identify, examine and critique their own presuppositions.
So according to ChatGPT 4o:
Absolute Presuppositions:
1. “Leaders must always prioritize the well-being of the group over personal interests.”
o This belief assumes that leadership is inherently self-sacrificial and focused on collective goals rather than individual success.
2. “Effective leadership is based on the ability to exert control and maintain authority.”
o Assumes that control is a fundamental quality of leadership, which could influence management style and decision-making processes.
3. “Great leaders are born, not made.”
o Assumes that leadership qualities are innate and cannot be cultivated or developed through learning and experience.
4. “Emotional intelligence is the most critical skill for successful leadership.”
o This belief asserts that the capacity to understand and manage emotions is more essential than technical skills or intellectual capacity in leadership roles.
5. “Leaders must always be visionary and inspire others toward a future goal.”
o Assumes that vision and inspiration are non-negotiable qualities for any effective leader, regardless of the context or type of organization.
Relative Presuppositions:
6. “Leadership effectiveness depends on context and situation.”
o Suggests that leadership is not a fixed set of traits or behaviors but is situational and varies depending on the circumstances, organizational culture, or external environment.
7. “Leaders should prioritize results over relationships when making decisions.”
o A belief that results matter more than the emotional or relational well-being of the team. This is relative, as it may change depending on the type of organization or the situation at hand.
8. “Leaders should always involve team members in decision-making processes.”
o This belief highlights a participative approach to leadership but can be debated or revised depending on the urgency or complexity of the decisions.
9. “Conflict should be avoided in teams to ensure cohesion and productivity.”
o This is a presupposition that can be questioned, as some leadership models suggest that managed conflict can enhance creativity and problem-solving.
10. “Leaders should be visible and present to be effective.”
o Assumes that physical or symbolic presence is crucial for leadership, but this can be contested, especially in remote or digital work environments.
You left out "history as emotion". Emotions are far more motivating than rational thoughts and are mindless.
Ngl the Christian Nationalists have this principle nailed. The liberal public school mythology is that the founding fathers wanted freedom of religion for hindus and satanists. The Christian Nationalist counter-myth (which is also more true) is that the founding fathers were vast majority protestants who wanted a rich diversity of protestant denominations allowed but not much else (true), and that states had their own state churches (true) and that protestant greatness settled and built America (true). However the mythologizing of these true points makes the history of armchair intellectuals and aristocratic farmers and small town judges more epic. E.g: Washington as Cincinnatus, John Adams quotes, Johnny Appleseed as a traveling preacher, Teddy Roosevelt-core aesthetics.