Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:35:38.547Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Noteworthy Misconception of Jews and Jewish Philosophy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2010

Extract

Even philosophers who are unsympathetic to Thomistic philosophy generally agree that Etienne Gilson is one of the important philosophers of this century. Those who have had the privilege of meeting or hearing Gilson also know him as a man of charm, wit, and integrity. These qualities, combined with his erudition, have made Gilson one of the intellectual leaders of the Roman Catholic Church. And there is probably much truth to the claim of his student, Pégis, that, “[N]on-Catho1ic readers have seen in him a ‘liberal’ Catholic scholar, which is a remarkable tribute…”. I have long been an admirer of Gilson's work, and so I was deeply disturbed and saddened by certain passages about Jews and Jewish philosophy in Gilson's autobiographical book, Le Philosophe et la Théologie. The remarks to which I refer are in the second chapter of this book, which has been translated into English by his daughter, Cécile; and were they the remarks of a minor professor, they would not merit any attention whatsoever. But because they are the remarks of a wise man, of one of the most influential thinkers of the century, they merit a consideration which for one reason or other they have not as yet received. My aim here is to show that certain of Gilson's views on Jews and Jewish philosophy are misconceptions; and though what I say here is mainly intended for Roman Catholic readers, some of the points I make will also be of interest to non-Catholics.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Pegis, Anton C., ed., A Gilson Reader, Image Books (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, 1957), p. 7Google Scholar.

2 Gilson, Étienne, Le Philosophe et la Théologie (Paris: Librairie Artheme Fayard, 1960), pp. 3233Google Scholar.

3 Gilson, Étienne, The Philosopher and Theology, trans, by Gilson, Cécile (New York: Random House, 1962), p. 26Google Scholar.

4 Gilson, Le Philosophe, p. 35.

5 I have borrowed this phrase from Cardinal Newman, who uses it in his famous letter to Kingsley of January 17, 1864.

6 Gilson, Le Philosophe, pp. 36–37.

7 Translation by Cecile Gilson, pp. 30–31.

8 Gilson, LePhilosophe, p. 37Google Scholar.

9 Translation by Cécile Gilson, p. 31.

10 Russell, Bertrand, History of Weslern Philosophy (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1946), p. 592Google Scholar.

11 Gilson, Le Philosophe, p. 38.

13 Ibid., p.40.

14 Adler, Morris, The World of the Talmud, Hillel Books (2nd ed.; New York: Schocken Books, 1963), p. 38Google Scholar.

15 Gilson, Le Philosophe, p.69.

16 Ibid., pp.40–43.

17 A Dialogue referee made the following very good point. “One obvious reason for Gilson's pique is overlooked: Gilson used Exodus 3:14 as the pillar of his Thomist metaphysics, yet though this passage is from the Old Testament, no Jewish philosopher of significance has become a Thomist.”