Summarize and explain the key differences between the various models or analogies of nature outlined by R. G. Collingwood in the idea of nature. Are there any possible differences in the normative implications that might follow from or be associated with each model with respect to the treatment of nature? Discuss
Thanks for needing help in this area - I know it well.
In general, you're talking about Collingwood's work, "The Idea of Nature." (Oxford, 1945)
There are actually a bunch of things that might qualify as three concepts of nature, but the most common in the secondary literature on him is the historical approach.
The three approaches to nature are historical ones.
First, the Greek:
This is a view of nature where mind or reason can be found within it. Nature is (to an extent) alive in that it operates in a way like any other organism. It has purpose. Change in the Greek view is cyclical - birth, growth, death, rebirth. This is manifested in their religion. The gods are active in nature as its "mind."
Technology would not be a priority here, since nature itself already has its purpose and function. Man can only understand - not change - the concept of nature. Hence, the moral consequent is that nature is seen as a moral creature, almost a god in itself.
The moral concept/implication, speaking simply, would be that humanity exists as an equal to the natural world. Reason is not just something in our minds, but exists in nature as well. Nature is a living, ordered whole. This is huge.
The expert examines R.G. Collingwood's various models of nature. The key differences between the various models or analogies of nature outlines by R.G. Collingwood in the idea of nature is determined.