Spór o rozumienie „filozofii chrześcijańskiej” między É. Gilsonem a H. Gouhierem
É. Gilson’s and H. Gouhier’s debate about the understanding of „Christian philosophy”

Summary/Abstract: The paper discusses the contributions of Étienne Gilson and his student and colleague, Henri Gouhier, to the debate – based on Malebranche’s thought – on the role of Christian Revelation in philosophy. It compares the ways in which both thinkers framed issues central to the notion of Christian philosophy. Because of the differences in answering the question of how the historical method should be used and what it reveals in philosophy, these two great historians and philosophers adopted very different approaches to Christian philosophy. Gilson viewed Christian philosophy from the perspective of his own philosophical history of philosophy and the unity of philosophical experience, and therefore he critically examined Malebranche’s thought. Gouhier’s historical method did not allow any separation of Malebranche’s life from his thought and assumed from the start an internal coherence of that thought with religious experience. Gilson and Gouhier agreed that only philosophers exist, and not philosophy. They denied that any radical separation between philosophy and the consciousness of being Christian can exist in Malebranche or in any Christian philosopher. They however recognized and wished to preserve the autonomy of philosophy and Christianity, opposing any confusion between the two.

• Details
• Contents