Brief Explanation: Etienne Gilson was an early and mid 20th century philosopher who specialized in examining and presenting the history of philosophy. His specialty was the philosopher Thomas Aquinas-for this reason, Gilson is known as a Thomist. Gilson founded the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies in Toronto, and his written works became widely popular among fellow Thomists, and had a widespread influence on the common understanding of Aquinas.
People nowadays criticize Gilson, because it seems that his portrayal of the thought of Aquinas and other historical philosophers might have been less than accurate. He exaggerated in portraying Thomas as an "Aristotelian", and is largely responsible for views that manifested themselves in maxims such as "Thomas "baptized" Aristotle" (i.e., tool Aristotle's views and worked them into a Catholic-Christian framework). He is responsible for the pitting of Plato vs Aristotle, and for positioning Aquinas as a pro-Aristotle, anti-Platonic philosopher.
The real reality of the thought of Plato/Platonists, Aristotle/Aristotelians, and Thomas Aquinas is far more complex. They learned from each other (at least those who lived afterwards learned from those who had come before). And Aquinas was neither a Platonist, nor an Aristotelian. He was himself. He was unique. Learning from others, including platonists, he created an intellectual world which was massive, awe-inspiring, and which cannot be ascribed to any one preceding thinker.
Perhaps Gilson's protrayal of past philosophers fails in accuracy. Yet does that mean that Gilson's writings are worthless? I would say no, on the contrary. In his imperfect portrayals, Gilson nonetheless put forth beautiful philosophical works. Plato's dialogues feature Socrates. No one thinks that Plato's dialogues portray the thought of Socrates with perfect accuracy. But that's okay, because they do portray Plato's thought, and are thus worth reading. Perhaps Gilson's works are the same. We can look upon the philosophers in his books as if they are characters, presenting different sides of metaphysical questions, and part of a philosophical framework which, while inspired by past philosophers, is Gilson's, and is worth reading on its own merits.
People nowadays criticize Gilson, because it seems that his portrayal of the thought of Aquinas and other historical philosophers might have been less than accurate. He exaggerated in portraying Thomas as an "Aristotelian", and is largely responsible for views that manifested themselves in maxims such as "Thomas "baptized" Aristotle" (i.e., tool Aristotle's views and worked them into a Catholic-Christian framework). He is responsible for the pitting of Plato vs Aristotle, and for positioning Aquinas as a pro-Aristotle, anti-Platonic philosopher.
The real reality of the thought of Plato/Platonists, Aristotle/Aristotelians, and Thomas Aquinas is far more complex. They learned from each other (at least those who lived afterwards learned from those who had come before). And Aquinas was neither a Platonist, nor an Aristotelian. He was himself. He was unique. Learning from others, including platonists, he created an intellectual world which was massive, awe-inspiring, and which cannot be ascribed to any one preceding thinker.
Perhaps Gilson's protrayal of past philosophers fails in accuracy. Yet does that mean that Gilson's writings are worthless? I would say no, on the contrary. In his imperfect portrayals, Gilson nonetheless put forth beautiful philosophical works. Plato's dialogues feature Socrates. No one thinks that Plato's dialogues portray the thought of Socrates with perfect accuracy. But that's okay, because they do portray Plato's thought, and are thus worth reading. Perhaps Gilson's works are the same. We can look upon the philosophers in his books as if they are characters, presenting different sides of metaphysical questions, and part of a philosophical framework which, while inspired by past philosophers, is Gilson's, and is worth reading on its own merits.
