Gilson e le fonti scolastiche di Cartesio ovvero Tommaso perduto e ritrovato. Pre-print (original) (raw)

Gilson assumes from his master Lévy Bruhl the methodological precept that the interpretation of philosophers of the past is only possible through the identification of their sources. The source Gilson prefers in his interpretation of Descartes is Thomas Aquinas. In the first study on Descartes, La liberté chez Descartes et la théologie, the comparison with Thomas Aquinas leads to a deformation of his thought due to an incorrect identification of Suárez’s thought with Aquinas’ one concerning the relationship between the essences of things and the nature of God. In the subsequent Études sur le rôle de la pensée médiévale dans la formation du système cartésien, Aquinas’ thought is also deformed by Gilson. This time, it is a deformation tending to separate Thomas Aquinas from Aristotelian philosophy, in favor of a full adherence to Christian creationism. Gilson’s operation appears fully evident in the interpretation of the proof of God’s existence going back from effects to the first cause, and particularly in the reconstruction of Aquinas’ arguments aimed to show the impossibility of regress to infinity. Unlike the previous case, this time Aquinas’ texts themselves provide Gilson with the elements for his interpretation.