VOL. IV (XXI) 2009 - Departamentul de Filosofie si Stiinte ale ...

FLORIN LOBONŢ 46
preserve both its essential nature (as worship) and the
insights of modern philosophy, while transcending the
respective limitations of the standpoints of (pure
religious) transcendence and (pure philosophical)
immanence. 44
As for the relevance of Collingwood’s analysis for his own reformed,
“historical,” metaphysics, it is far from being insignificant. Among his
reflections involving the ontological argument stand those remarked by
Michael J. O’Neil (even if they are not based on unpublished material by
Collingwood):
Anselm’s proof is essential to Collingwood’s historical science of
mind… For [him], it is Anselm’s proof that clearly expresses th[e] relationship
between faith and reason. The two elements of this analysis that must be
understood if one is to understand Collingwood’s use of the proof are what
he means by “the idea of an object that shall completely satisfy the demands
of reason” and the “special case of metaphysical thinking.” 45
1 Robin G. Collingwood, “Realism and Idealism” (1936), Department of Western
Manuscripts, Bodleian Library, Oxford, Dep. Collingwood 20, p. 26.
2 See Florin Lobonţ, Noua metafizică engleză, o regretabilă necunoscută, Bucureşti,
Editura Trei, 2002, p. 155.
3 Stephen Toulmin, Introduction to An Autobiography by R.G. Collingwood”, Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1978, p. xiii.
4 Ibid., p. xiv.
5 Guido Vanheeswijck, “Metaphysics as a Historical[ly Based] Discipline: The
Relevance of Collingwood’s Reformed Metaphysics”, unpublished manuscript
(undated), Collingwood Archives, Swansea, p. ii.
6 Ibid., p. iv.
7 Ibid., vii, viii.
8 Evandro Agazzi, “Realismul naiv şi antirealismul naiv”, Rom. Tr. Rodica Croitoru, in
Angela Botez (coord), Realism i relativism în filosofia ştiinţei contemporane
(Bucureşti: Editura DAR, 1993), p. 35.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Joseph M. Felser, “R.G. Collingwood’s Early Philosophy of Religion and Its
Development,” vol. I-II, PhD diss. (Chicago: University of Chicago, Illinois, 1992) p.
358.
12 Robin G. Collingwood, “Lectures on the Ontological Proof of the Existence of God.
Written December 1919 for delivery Hilary Term 1920.” Department of Western
Manuscripts, Bodleian Library, Oxford. Dep. Collingwood 2, pp. 31-2 (hereafter
LOP).
13 Ibid., p. 27, italics added.
14 With respect to this point, Collingwood wrote that “Kant did not deny a priori
knowledge: but he came to the conclusion that it could not be explained on the basis