The Unity of Philosophical Experience

by Étienne Gilson

The best summary of this book is in the authors words from the foreword: "It is the proper aim and scope of the present book to show that the history of philosophy makes philosophical sense, and to define its meaning in regard to the nature of philosophical knowledge itself. For that reason, the various doctrines, as well as the definite parts of these doctrines, which have been taken into account in this volume, should not be considered as arbitrarily selected fragments from some abridged description of the medieval and modern philosophy, but as a series of concrete philosophical experiments especially chosen for their dogmatic significance. Each of them represents a definite attempt to deal with philosophical knowledge according to a certain method, and all of them, taken together, make up a philosophical experience. The fact that all those experiments have yielded the same result will, as I hope, justify the common conclusion...that there is a centuries long experience of what philosophical knowledge is—and that such an experience exhibits a remarkable unity."

Genres: Philosophy, History, Religion, Nonfiction, Theology, Christianity, Catholic

352 pages, Paperback

First published November 22, 1937

About the author

Étienne Henri Gilson was born into a Roman Catholic family in Paris on 13 June 1884. He was educated at a number of Roman Catholic schools in Paris before attending lycée Henri IV in 1902, where he studied philosophy. Two years later he enrolled at the Sorbonne, graduating in 1907 after having studied under many fine scholars, including Lucien Lévy Bruhl, Henri Bergson and Emile Durkheim.
Gilson taught in a number of high schools after his graduation and worked on a doctoral thesis on Descartes, which he successfully completed (Sorbonne) in 1913. On the strength of advice from his teacher, Lévy Bruhl, he began to study medieval philosophy in great depth, coming to see Descartes as having strong connections with medieval philosophy, although often finding more merit in the medieval works he saw as connected than in Descartes himself. He was later to be highly esteemed for his work in medieval philosophy and has been described as something of a saviour to the field.
From 1913 to 1914 Gilson taught at the University of Lille. His academic career was postponed during the First World War while he took up military service. During his time in the army he served as second lieutenant in a machine-gun regiment and was awarded the Croix de Guerre for bravery upon relief from his duties. After the war, he returned to academic life at Lille and (also) Strasbourg, and in 1921 he took up an appointment at the Sorbonne teaching the history of medieval philosophy. He remained at the Sorbonne for eleven years prior to becoming Professor of Medieval Philosophy at the College de France in 1932. During his Sorbonne years and throughout his continuing career Gilson had the opportunity to travel extensively to North America, where he became highly influential as a historian and medievalist, demonstrating a number of previously undetermined important differences among the period’s greatest figures.

Gilson’s Gifford Lectures, delivered at Aberdeen in 1931 and 1932, titled ‘The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy’, were published in his native language (L’espirit de la philosophie medieval, 1932) before being translated into English in 1936. Gilson believed that a defining feature of medieval philosophy was that it operated within a framework endorsing a conviction to the existence of God, with a complete acceptance that Christian revelation enabled the refinement of meticulous reason. In this regard he described medieval philosophy as particularly ‘Christian’ philosophy.

Gilson married in 1908 and the union produced three children, two daughters and one son. Sadly, his wife died of leukaemia in late 1949. In 1951 he relinquished his chair at the College de France in order to attend to responsibilities he had at the Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto, Canada, an institute he had been invited to establish in 1929. Gilson died 19 September 1978 at the age of ninety-four.

Reviews

[فؤاد · Rating 3 out of 5]

کتاب
كتاب، به طور خلاصه مى خواهد مختصرى از شكست هاى مكاتب متعدد فلسفى غرب از قرون وسطا تا قرن نوزدهم را بازگو كند و نشان دهد كه در تمام آن ها سير مشتركى مدام طى شده و همگى از تلاش براى كشف نظام واحد هستى، به "شكاكيت" و بعد به "عرفان" و "اخلاق گرايى" افراطى ناشى از يأس فلسفى منتهى شده اند و اين چرخه بارها و بارها تكرار شده است. اما اين شكست هاى فلسفى، بر خلاف عقيده ى امروزيان، به خاطر بى ثمر بودن اساس انديشه ى متافيزيكى نيست؛ بلكه به خاطر مسير اشتباهى است كه فلاسفه طى مى كرده اند.
در نهايت، نويسنده به پيروى از سنت فلسفى قديس توماس آكويناس (و بيشتر حكماى مسلمان) توضيح مى دهد كه اساس انديشه ى فلسفى بايد بر مبناى "موجود بما هو موجود" ساخته شود و فلسفه علم شناخت احوال "وجود" است. ولى چون فيلسوفان اساس انديشه ى خود را بر چيزهاى ديگرى گذاشته اند (و گاه حتى علوم ديگرى همچون "معرفت شناسى" يا "جامعه شناسى" را با فلسفه اشتباه گرفته اند)، پيوسته به بيراهه افتاده اند.

مشكل بزرگ كتاب، اين است كه شما را در تاريخ فلسفه اين سو و آن سو مى كشاند و گيجتان مى كند و تازه در بيست صفحه ى آخر مى فهميد كه هدف از اين سير چه بوده و تازه آن موقع است كه تمام اين سير برايتان معنا پيدا مى كند. اين اشكال بسيار بزرگ است. مخصوصاً با دشوار بودن موضوع و مباحث كتاب، ضرورت دارد كه نويسنده در ابتدا اجمالاً روشن كند كه چه هدفى را مى خواهد دنبال كند. وگرنه، فصل هاى كتاب در نظر خواننده، خيابان ها و كوچه هاى تو در تو و گيج كننده ايست كه پس از ساعت ها سرگردان ماندن، تازه نقشه ى كلى آن ها را مى بيند.

ترجمه
مترجم هر چند قلم خوبى دارد و بعضى جاها از نثرش لذت مى بردم، ولى در بسيارى موارد، جملات را بيش از حد پيچانده است و مى توانست خيلى ساده تر حرف را بزند. اين است كه فهم متن گاه جز با دوبار و سه بار خواندن ميسر نمى شود و گاه بايد از خير فهميدن برخى جملات گذشت.

[David Haines · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm not sure how many times I've read this book, more times than are logged on Goodreads, but this book is just as good as before! Worth reading often. Gilson is insightful.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

A short but excellent and insightful history of philosophy from medieval times to post-Kant. Gilson’s insights on various points are illuminating and instructive. He helps you to see the whole of this subject in a coherent way.

As with most short histories, broad strokes often mask important details. Gilson often seemingly begs questions in favor of Aristotle or Aquinas. Nevertheless, some of his analyses are spot on. His critique of Descartes is the best and most thorough I have ever read. The book is worthwhile for that alone.

All in all, an excellent history of philosophical thought. (Note that this book assumes quite a bit of prior familiarity. It’s fairly technical with its use of philosophical jargon.)

[Mohammad Mahdi Fallah · Rating 5 out of 5]

کتاب به شدت دلنشین بود و تحلیل تاریخی فلسفه را از نقطه نظری مطرح می کرد که مقبول و مطلوب بود. ژیلسون درصدده که با این کتاب، فلسفه را به پرسش اصلی خودش یعنی وجود برگردونه و توی این مسیر از تقلیل فلسفه به کلام، ریاضی، علم و جامعه شناسی نقد می کنه؛ موضعی که به نظر خود هم چیزی جز تقلیل فلسفه به فلسفه نیست.

از کتاب:
"تنزل دادن فلسفه به علم خالص، مستلزم این است که بشر نه تنها از حق قضاوت درباره طبیعت و همچنین از حق اداره آن چشم بپوشد بلکه خود را به جنبه خاصی از طبیعت اختصاص دهد که آن هم مانند بقیه اجزاء تابع قانونی است که بر جریان تمام طبیعت حاکم است."

[Pipina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un libro maravilloso. Gilson conoce profundamente a cada filósofo, reconoce su genio y mira con simpatía sus esfuerzos... a la vez que demuestra el fracaso de sus sistemas porque, como nos recuerda una y otra vez, los filósofos son libres para elegir sus principios, pero una vez elegidos las conclusiones se derivan de ellos con absoluta necesidad.

"Los filósofos que se dejan seducir por el señuelo de la ciencia positiva [como Abelardo por la Lógica, Descartes por la Matemática, Kant por la Física, Comte por la Sociología] siempre acaban su vida en un mundo extraño: ese es su castigo. [...] Sin embargo todavía les aguarda otro castigo: sus discípulos".

El libro está por ello repleto de humor, no el humor fácil de la anécdota personal, sino el humor amable de quien ve a enormes inteligencias empeñadas en una tarea imposible "porque todo conocimiento filosófico depende, al fin, de la Metafísica". La obra es, efectivamente, una defensa de la Metafísica mediante la reductio ad absurdum: mostrando el callejón sin salida en el que acaban todos los intentos de prescindir de ella.

[امیر لطیفی]

هنوز این کتاب را نخواندم ولی در اینجا معرفی کوتاهی از کتاب خواندم که برای خودم مفید به نظر آمد و تصمیم گرفتم اینجا بگذارم که یادم بماند:
کتاب اتین ژیلسون برایم بسیار خواندنی است. تصور کنید یک سخنران که بسیار مسلط به فلسفه غرب است با ادبیاتی صریح و صمیمی و همراه با
مقداری طنز مهمترین نکات تکرار شونده در فلسفه غرب را مطرح می کند. اگر کمی احساس غربت کنیم فوراْ از متن کتاب دور می شویم و و آن را کتابی ثقیل فرض می کنیم اما وقتی به همان اطلاعات اندکی که از غرب می دانیم قانع شویم ُ به تدریج متوجه اهمیتی کتابی می شویم که سعی می کند یک دیدگاه کلی به خواننده بدهد؛ و آن اینکه غرب دارای یک وحدت تجربی فلسفی است. وحدت تجربه فلسفی غرب شاخص هایی مانند اصالت منطق، اصالت کلام و اصالت ریاضیات و... دارد که عناوین فصول مختلف کتاب ژیلسون را تشکیل می دهند. اساساً عنوان کتاب همین عبارت The Unity of Philosophical Experience است که مترجم آن را به عبارت غلط «نقد تفکر فلسفی غرب» ترجمه کرده است . این هم از عجایب ترجمه در ایران است!

[Laurent Dv · Rating 5 out of 5]

Montre les échecs de réduire (ultimement) la philosophie à la logique (Abélard), aux mathématiques / l'idéalisme (Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza, Leibniz), à la physique / idéalisme (Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel), à la sociologie (Auguste Comte, Stuart Mill). Il donner la place à la philosophie en la centrant sur l'étude de l'être en tant qu'être au lieu de l'absorber en un autre aspect de l'être que constituent les autres sciences/matières (physique, maths, sociologie etc).

Même si Gilson ne parle pas explicitement du thomisme, de d'Aquin et Aristote, on peut faire en lien que la véritable étude de l'être en tant qu'être doit nécessairement avoir en vue Dieu, l'être parfait, celui dont l'essence est l'existence-même. En gros, pour relier cette vision au christianisme : au lieu de réduire (ultimement) la philosophie à l'étude d'un aspect de la Création, il faut la centrer l'aspect sur le Créateur (l'être).

[Teacheriii · Rating 5 out of 5]

Abelard, Ockham, Descartes, Locke, Comte, etc., -- how did their philosophies end in such tragic contradiction? Gilson points out the blunder that allures us all, and then offers a brilliant solution in the end for arriving at a system that provides cohesion. For any lover of wisdom this book better be on the shelf.

[Annie]

Nancy Pearcey recommendation: "The reason various philosophies fail, he shows, is that they fasten upon some aspect of creation an elevate it into an ultimate principle--and then reduce everything else to that single principle."

[Tirdad · Rating 3 out of 5]

عنوانی که مترجم برای کتاب برگزیده، هرچند هیچ ارتباطی با عنوان اصلی کتاب ندارد، اما به خوبی بیان‌گر محتوای کتاب است. نگارنده با بررسی تاریخ فلسفه می‌کوشد به این پرسش متافلسفی پاسخ دهد که اصولاً چه الزاماتی برای فلسفه‌ورزی وجود دارد و فاصله گرفتن از این الزامات چه‌گونه جریان‌های گوناگون فلسفی را به بن‌بست می‌کشاند. تمرکز اصلی کتاب بر افکار و مکاتب متافیزیک در تاریخ اندیشه‌های فلسفی است. پاسخ نهایی نگارنده این است که «وجود» پس‌زمینه و لازمه‌ی طرح مباحث متافیزیکی است و هرگاه مبدأ افکار در جای دیگری قرار گرفته، در نهایت مسیر به ناکجا ختم شده است.

کتاب البته از نظر من بی‌ایراد نیست. شروع کتاب بی‌مقدمه است و پرسش و دغدغه‌ی محوری کتاب تا اواسط کتاب بر خواننده پوشیده است. مشکل دیگر که مربوط به فرم و طرح کتاب است، مروری‌ و گذرا‌بودن روایت کتاب است. مؤلف حدی از آشنایی با تاریخ فلسفه را فرض می‌گیرد که البته در خصوص فیلسوفان مشهور، نمی‌توان به آن خرده گرفت اما در خصوص برخی متفکرین قرون وسطا و فیلسوفان کم‌تر مطرح این پیش‌فرض‌ها خواننده را دچار مشکل می‌کند.
ترجمه‌ی کتاب، صرف نظر از برخی ابهامات انگشت‌شمار، به طور کلی قابل قبول است ولی در برگردان برخی واژگان فلسفی به‌روز نیست. به طور مثال ترجمه‌ی «a priori» به «پیشینی» چندی است در نوشته‌های فلسفی به زبان فارسی جا افتاده، اما مترجم آن را به «قبل از تجربه» برگردانده است.

[jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

After two years of studying philosophy, this book drew together themes in a way that made sense.

[M. I · Rating 4 out of 5]

ان ابيلار هو واحد من اذكى العقول التي جادت بها القرون الوسطى بدأ بتفسير المنطق بلغة النحو ثم تابع بتفسير الفلسفة بلغة المنطق وصل ابيلار الى نتيجة ، لا توجد افكار عامة ، الله وحده يملكها وهذا بالنسبة اليه سبب قدرة الله على الخلق والاستمرار بحفظ الوجود وبوصفه خالقاً يتصور في ذهنه مسبقاً الشكل المماثل للشيء الذي يؤلفه . ومن هنا كانت نتيجة ابيلار يمكن ان يكون للانسان فهم صحيح لما يرد الى الحواس ، اما فهم تلك اباشكال العامة التي لا يمكن فهمها من خلال الحواس ، فيبقى اقل بكثير من كونه رأياً . ان الفلسفة بالنسبة ل ابيلار لا يمكن تحصيلها عن طريق المنطق المحض هكذا بدت النتيجة لمراقب دقيق في القرن الثاني عشر هو العالم بالثقافات القديمة
انا بالنسبة للاهوتيين ان طريقة للتعامل هي استئصال الفلسفة والمسائل الفلسفية من الذهن البشري ، فحيثما وجد اللاهوت او ببساطة الايمان فإن التأمل الفلسفي لا ينسجم اساساً مع الحياة المخلصة في تدينها
يقول الاوكامي الراهب الفرنسيسكاني ان الاشياء هي التي تسبب المعرفة الحدسية فينا ذلك ان النتائج الطبيعية دائماً تشبه اسبابها وهذا هو سبب قدرتنا على تكوين فكرة السبب عندما ندرك احدى نتائجه ، لذا يمكن القول حتى الظراهر الفيزيائية هي الدلائل الطبيعية على اسبابها . ان النتائج الفلسفية التي توصل اليها الاوكامي ، انه تجريبي محض في الفلسفة ، اعتبر ان ارادة الرب اخر حجة في اللاهوت ، لان ارادة الله هي السبب النهائي لكل شيء
يمثل ديكارت فترة الانتقال من النهضة الى العالم الحديث ، اضاف ديكارت ان العقل احسن الاشياء توزعاً بين الناس . فقد استنتج ان طبيعة الذهن نفسها، تنتج كل الافكار الفطرية بالضرورة المبادىء العامة للمعرفة الانسانية ، لذا يعتقد ديكارت ان التفكير ضرورة دائمة للنفس . اذ يقول في التأمل الثاني حول الفلسفة الاولى من الحقيقة الوحيدة ان الله خلقني ، ثمة احتمال كبير انه بطريقة ما وضع صورته وشبهه فيّ وانا ادرك هذا الشبه بواسطة نفس القوة التي ادرك بها نفسي . ان الإله الديكارتي بمعنى ما لا يؤثر كثيراً في العالم لان العالم يمكن ان يطور نفسه بحرية كما لو كان الله غير موجود . هنا نجد ديكارتين : ديكارت كان يريد التخلص من الله تماماً ، وديكارت أراد نسبة السبب كلها الى الله
اما كانط يقول الله ليس كائناً خارج نفسي بل هو مجرد فكرة في داخلي . الله هو العقل العملي المشرع لذاته اخلاقياً ، الله فقط داخلي وحولي وفوقي كالقانون الداخلي ذاته ، هو إما انه لا شيء او انه هو السلطة التشريعية للعقل العملي فينا
كان اوغيست كونت موهوباً بقدرته الهائلة على التفكير المجرد كانت المهمة الاولى ضرورة تمديد روح العلم الوضعي الى الوقائع الاجتماعية ، واخراج السياسة من حالتها الميتافيزيقية والفوضوية وتحويلها الى علم وضعي يباشر مرحلة هندس اجتماعي وسياسية . اوصلت افمار اوغيست كونت الى استنتاج ان كل مواد عقيدة المستقبل يجب ان تكون مأخوذة من العلم ، لكن العلم وحده لا يستطيع ان ينتج العقيدة بنفسها ما يلزم هو فلسفة وضعية نظام فكري موحد ودقيق تكون كل حقائقه مبرهنة علمياً . ان سوسيولوجية كونت واحدة من التجارب الفلسفية الاكثر تميزاً التي حفظها التاريخ باختزالها الى ابسط تعبيراتها

[Nathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gilson's argument and conclusions here are absolutely outstanding; they reach a simplicity and serenity which is characteristic of his best work.

I'm rating it 4, though, because it's the first work of his I've read which assumes a more-than-passing familiarity with the historical and philosophical subjects at hand without offering much of a helping hand. It's easy to see why: Gilson is dealing with nothing less than the entirety of Western philosophy from the 11th to the 20th century, and this is ultimately a philosophical work, not a historical one. There simply isn't room to give a primer on the thought of every major and middling philosopher he touches on, and he touches on at least a dozen and a half. That said, even allowing for the limitations of the approach and his intentions, I can't help noting that Gilson's ability in other philosophical works (like Painting and Reality) to bring one up to speed while advancing his claims is one of my very favourite things about him and while the feeling of drowning in one of his works remains one of my favourite ways to learn, here it genuinely felt at times like there would be no rescue.

It all does come together in the concluding chapter, which highlights another aspect of this work - it's really a single 250 page lecture divided into historically-demarcated chapters, not an actual book designed to be read in progressive steps, with watering holes along the way. While I can't imagine ever reading it in one sitting, knowing that going in would've helped me better prepare for the long march.

[Daniel Massett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not finished, mainly because I think I've read a few books that really jump off from this one, so I feel like I've read this book by reading around it. The basic idea is great and well-explored. Basically, Gilson looks at the history of philosophical ideas, believing that essentially, one man can't fully develop a philosophy, but that if you look at that originator and their disciples, you see how their philosophy plays out and if it's ultimately successful or unsuccessful. History is to the philosopher what the laboratory is to the scientist.

And so what does Gilson find? Basically, trying to make philosophy about anything other than Being itself reduces it, leads to insurmountable difficulties, and ultimately, ends in skepticism about the possibility of true philosophy. So to reduce Being to mathematics (Descartes) leads to problems like the separation between body and soul (since if things have to be wholly separate, then body and soul can't be connected at all), or making Philosophy into Theology means that God can do things that are morally evil and that has to be ok (like Islam's Voluntarism--God's Will triumphs over intellect--if God says murder is ok, even if that's wholly contrary to reason, then it must be ok) or the belief that God makes the world new in each moment, making change and contingency impossible. In the modern world, knowledge has become impossible, everything atomized. We must rediscover a vein of true philosophy that encounters and reckons with Being itself.

[R · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gilson’s writing style is approachable and easy to follow, unsurprising since this was originally a series of lectures. The tone often echoes what his audience would have heard, I think. At times, it seems to me that his own love of his subject comes through quite clearly. The language he uses is not needlessly complicated, avoiding the use of jargon, yet not the use of key terms that are necessary to any study and understanding of philosophy.
He builds his case methodically, working toward his final conclusions by patiently weaving his arguments through his analysis of the history of philosophy. This analysis itself is insightful and encourages a more broad perspective on the development of metaphysics from the Middle Ages to the early twentieth century.
I will admit to getting impatient with Gilson for sticking so faithfully to the progress of his argument when I really wanted to know where it was going, but I must also admit that it was better that he built his case in this way. It made the validity of his ultimate conclusions clear. In the end, it was entirely worth the wait.
Indeed, without saying too much, Gilson’s line of reasoning made me want to know what his own idea of Being was, yet that is not in this text. Of course, as an examination of the history of philosophy, it would not be. Looks like I need to read more Gilson, which is in no way a bad thing.

[Joshua Ocon · Rating 5 out of 5]

More than the task required of him as a historian of philosophy, Gilson goes on to demonstrate the very underpinnings of philosophical systems that prevailed throughout history. From Abelard's logicism to Descartes' mathematician, from Kant's physicism to Comte's sociologicism, it is no other than metaphysics, the first philosophy and mother of all the sciences, which unites and gives foundation to philosophical experience, regardless of its denigration by its own offspring.

[Michal Paszkiewicz · Rating 3 out of 5]

A cheeky and interesting take on the history of philosophy, looking at the various attempts at having a philosophical theory of everything. I am left feeling that the book lacks a stronger conclusion, but the author certainly presented critiques for a horde of different attempts.

[Brother Gregory Rice, SOLT · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first out-and-out philosophic work I've read, to my knowledge. Incredibly clear, covering an enormous sweep of history of thought. Felt that it put it all in the palm of the hand. Compelled me to read more of this aithor.

[Jared Mindel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Phenomenal work. A kind of history of philosophy specifically in metaphysics which covers a lot of eras. I learned a lot about Abelard, Ockham, Kant, Hegel, etc. He covers other figures, but he's especially interesting there.

[Vagabond of Letters, DLitt · Rating 4 out of 5]

8.5/10

[Aaron Cliff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another excellent volume on the history of philosophy and its pitfalls. He even allows for some solutions at the end of the book!

[Nicholas Satterlee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic and readable and just amazing book on why Being needs to be the first principle of metaphysics

[Elvis · Rating 4 out of 5]

good book. not sure what Gilson was thinking when writing some of the hegel bits.

[Jackson Switzer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant!!!!

[Isaiah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Unreal. Or, rather, if we understand unreality to be the absolute lack of reality, such a thing could not be, as Being is the first principle of all philosophies. That is, this book is so incredibly real.

Masterful work by Gilson. Absolutely has & will continue to shape my entire thought from now till the end of my life.

Phenomenal, sensensational, astounding, insightful, and intellectually stimulating.

This just might be my favorite book of all time. But, we'll see how recency bias wears off in the coming months.

[Malcolm Yarnell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Etienne Gilson expertly traces the pattern of the history of philosophy from various idealisms to skepticism through to retreats into moralism or mysticism, beginning with the Greeks and ending in the demise of Western thought. Gilson drops nuggets of wisdom throughout, but I would argue his first, fifth, and seventh conclusive laws are irreplaceable for any form of thought as well as for metaphysics. Enjoyed reading this with Dick Lincoln.

[Tara · Rating 4 out of 5]

Etienne really pulled it together in the end. The book was quite good, but the conclusions were extraordinary and important.

[Erik]

Recommended by James Schall in Another Sort of Learning, Chapter 8, as one of Eight Helpful Books on Metaphysics.

[Rebecca Hicks · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book for the reader who already has a foundation in philosophy.

[Arvin آذرگین · Rating 2 out of 5]

با این که اطلاعات مفیدی در اختیار خواننده قرار می دهد اما آثاری که از ژیلسن خواندم بسیار غیر نظام مند و خسته کننده نوشته شده است.