Étienne Gilson stands out in the field where Christian theologians, besides using philosophy, develop it, giving rise to what can be called "Christian philosophy". It is necessary to be quite precise to understand this expression well. And we had occasion to recall the famous debate of the French Society of Philosophy, in 1931.
Gilson and Heidegger
The expression "Christian philosophy" was not particularly dear to Gilson, although, so to speak, it stuck to him, because of the much attention he paid to it throughout his life. At first glance it seems a contradiction: either it is philosophy or theology, they are different methods. And that is why Heidegger vents it with a stroke of a pen in his Introduction to metaphysics. In a passage where, by the way, he argues that Christians cannot do true metaphysics, because they cannot place themselves before the being of things with the same radicality as an atheist. Only the atheist radically asks why things are there, and why it is being and not rather nothingness. A Christian takes for granted the explanation of being in God and it seems obvious to him. He does not feel the mystery and strangeness of being.
To read more
Gilson (or Maritain) would half agree with Heidegger. They would accept that the Christian cannot help thinking "in Christian". However, they would add that he is capable of doing true philosophy, because he is able to distinguish what he can obtain by reason from what he knows by revelation. But evidently their "position" (as Maritain would say, and as he collects Fides et ratio) is different; in this they agree with Heidegger. As Gilson likes to repeat, it is not reason but the person who thinks.
Gilson attended several of Heidegger's lectures and, according to his biographer (Shook), was moved to tears when he heard him speak about being. But he also thought that Heidegger lacked much historical scholarship and that his Aristotle came from Franz Brentano, and therefore from the scholastic tradition, and was retouched and Christianized. Therefore, like other philosophers and historians of philosophy (Brehier, for example), he was unable to appreciate the Christian philosophical contribution in metaphysics. They thought that Christianity had limited itself to assuming Greek categories and had become Hellenized, but they did not appreciate how much these categories and approaches had changed when they came into contact with Christianity: God (supreme being), being, scale of beings, cause, finality, knowledge, will, freedom, love. Gilson's great theological contribution will be precisely to show this frontier and these influences.
The history and sources of Thomism
Gilson was, above all, a great historian of medieval philosophy. And he contributed in a very important way to make a place for him at the Sorbonne, to be recognized as a subject, because he produced an admirable set of studies on St. Augustine, St. Bonaventure, Abelard, St. Bernard, Duns Scotus and Dante, as well as many articles; and he composed finally a great History of Medieval Philosophy.
He also devoted much attention to the philosophy of St. Thomas with three synthetic works: the most important one, Thomism (first edition in 1918), which he expanded and improved throughout his life; the second edition, Elements of Christian philosophyThe third and last one, in the form of an essay and without quotations, is a synthesis for his students at the Institute of Medieval Philosophy in Toronto. The third and last, in the form of an essay and without quotations, is the Introduction to Christian Philosophy.
It should be noted that he did the "philosophy" and not the theology of these authors. But these authors were theologians and not philosophers. Their philosophy is inserted and developed in their theology: they do philosophy by doing theology, because they need it. This is going to be the core of their nuanced idea. In doing theology, they inspire the transformations of the philosophy they use; and that is precisely the acceptable meaning of "Christian philosophy".
The expression "Christian philosophy" was not particularly dear to Gilson, although, so to speak, it stuck to him, because of the much attention he paid to it throughout his life.
On this point, Gilson polemicized a bit with the members of the Leuven Institute of Philosophy (de Wulf, Van Steenbergen), who really treated them as philosophers. And, moreover, in the case of de Wulf they defended the existence of a more or less unitary "scholastic philosophy". Gilson, as a good historian, was shocked by mixing the sources, because he was aware of their differences, and, in the end, he simply preferred St. Thomas, read in his sources, and not received from an independent Thomistic or scholastic tradition or school.
Scholasticism through Descartes
Gilson recounts his first intellectual steps in a short preface to a brilliant but little known book, God and philosophya collection of four lectures published by Yale University (1941).
"I was educated in a French Catholic college [at the college and also minor seminary of Notre-Dame-des-Champs], from which I left after seven years of studies, without having heard even once, at least as far as I remember, the name of St. Thomas Aquinas. When the time came for me to study philosophy, I attended a state college whose philosophy professor - a late disciple of Victor Cousin - had evidently never read a single line of St. Thomas Aquinas. At the Sorbonne none of my professors knew the Thomistic doctrine, and all I knew of it was that, if there were anyone foolish enough to set himself to study it, he would find in it only an expression of that Scholasticism which, since the time of Descartes, had become a mere piece of mental archaeology.".
Incidentally, it should be noted that it was in this environment that he would later get a chair of medieval philosophy. This is no small merit.
At the Sorbonne he was fascinated by a course on Hume by the Jewish philosopher Lucien Lévi-Bruhl. He loved the seriousness of his text-based method. And he wanted to do his doctoral thesis with him. "He advised me to study the vocabulary - and, incidentally, the concepts Descartes had taken from Scholasticism.". And indeed he did the thesis on Freedom in Descartes and Theology and published it in 1913, with a Scholastic-Cartesian Indexwhich is a collection of Descartes' important notions where the scholastic influence is noticeable.
Discoveries and projects
And this is where it all began. Descartes had a scholastic formation, because there was no other where he studied. He learned what intelligence, will and freedom are at the Jesuit La Flèche school, with all the evolutions that these concepts had undergone in the debate on grace and freedom (controversy De Auxiliis). But also the idea of God and of cause and of being. When he wanted to separate himself from what he had learned as unsafe and to re-found philosophy, he could not detach himself from the concepts that his mind handled naturally. For Gilson it was a double revelation. The first, of an evident Christian influence in the considered founder of modern philosophy. The second: "I discovered that Descartes' metaphysical conclusions only make sense when they coincide with the metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas.".
His vital itinerary would lead him to know better the medieval theologians, extracting their philosophical contribution. And then to try to explain the evolution of the great concepts from Greek philosophy to modern philosophy.
This meant overcoming the Enlightenment prejudice that between Greek philosophy and Descartes there is nothing of philosophy, but in any case, theology. And this would mark the lines of development of his immense work.
His vital itinerary would lead him, first, to know better the medieval theologians, extracting his philosophical contribution, especially from St. Thomas. And then, with all that historical erudition, to try to explain the evolution of the great concepts from Greek philosophy to modern philosophy. That is to say, to study specifically by areas how this transformation takes place. Up to Gilson's most emblematic book, The spirit of medieval philosophy. Although it is not a formally theological book, it is extremely important for the theology of the twentieth century, because the spirit that animates this philosophy and produces this transformation is the Christian spirit.
The index of scholastic concepts that he had prepared to study Descartes would serve as his first guide both in synthesizing the philosophy of the scholastic authors and in choosing the concepts from which to tell the story. And from all these subtle relationships between personality, philosophy and theology would emerge his nuanced understanding, collected, with an autobiographical tone, in another of his great books, The philosopher and theology (1960).
The spirit of medieval philosophy
In 1930, Gilson was already 47 years old. He was in the prime of his career. He had achieved almost unanimous academic recognition and respect for medieval philosophy. He had founded the Institute of Medieval Philosophy in Toronto (1929). And he had given many courses at many American universities, being particularly beloved at Harvard. This was because he was a hard worker and gave excellent courses, constantly developing his great themes. Such great erudition allowed him to compose very attractive syntheses and comparisons. Always original, but also rigorous and based on the texts. He never forgot what he learned with Lévi-Bhrul.
It was under these circumstances that he was invited to deliver the Gifford Lectures at the University of Aberdeen, in two successive years, 1930 and 1931. Lord Adam Gifford (1820-1887) was a successful and well-known Scottish lawyer who bequeathed his fortune so that every year lectures on Natural Theology were given at the major Scottish universities (Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and St. Andrew's). Since 1888, these lectures have resulted in an impressive collection of first-rate essays and many classics in the humanities. The lists are worth a look (and there is plenty of documentation. online).
In Gilson's two courses, gathered together in The Spirit of Medieval Philosophytells, point by point, how the great notions of philosophy have been transformed, from their Greek to their modern form, by the impact of Christian revelation, detailing especially the medieval contribution in all its variety. It is a brilliant book, which could only be written by a person who combines so many qualities of method and erudition, as well as great narrative gifts.
After studying the idea of wisdom or philosophy, we first approach ontology, with the idea of being, its causality, analogy, participation, and God, with his providence. Then, anthropology: from the value of the spirit and the body, through knowledge and intelligence to love, freedom and conscience. It ends with the transversal study of three notions in the Middle Ages: nature, history and philosophy.
The philosopher and theology
This other book, written when he was 75 years old, is also of great theological interest. It begins by recounting the loneliness and strangeness that a Christian philosopher can feel in an environment that is not very Christian, although he always felt respected and had many friends. He also describes that peculiar status of security that a Christian has on fundamental issues. He recognizes that, in a practicing Catholic, philosophy normally comes later and that, spontaneously, it always occupies a second place in his convictions.
He recalls his university years, with much gratitude to Bergson, who encouraged so many on the path of philosophy, and who seemed close to converting to Christianity, although Gilson qualifies. He also thanks so many professors and qualifies judgments that seem to him exaggerated or unfair about them (for example, Péguy).
He goes through the nuances of "Christian philosophy". And in the last chapter, on "The future of Christian philosophy."points out three things: first, that "the future of Christian philosophy will depend, in the first place, on the presence or absence of theologians with scientific training".The author warns that the new technologies are a way to situate and dialogue with the current thinking. He warns that "all metaphysics grow old because of their physics."And this obliges us to be cautious, not to try to agree too quickly. And not to be mistaken about the foundation, which is in faith and in metaphysical convictions (realism and being). Remember, then, the value of the philosophy of St. Thomas on this point.
Gilson has other books of theological interest, such as The metamorphosis of the city of God, y Sofia's tribulationswith some impressions on post-conciliar drifts. There is also the correspondence he maintained with great theologians, among others De Lubac (already edited) and Chenu, who were his friends, and whom he supported when they encountered misunderstandings and difficulties.
Laurence Shook's great authorized biography, Étienne Gilson (1984), is magnificent, and the Italian version has an excellent foreword by theologian Inos Biffi. In addition, Vrin has published another voluminous one, by Michel Florian, Étienne Gilson. Une biographie intellectuelle et politique (2018).
