Abstract

Étienne Gilson juxtaposes what he calls Aquinas’s “existentialism” to what he calls Scotus’s “essentialism.” For Gilson, “existentialism” is philosophical truth, the only view compatible with an authentically Christian metaphysic, while “essentialism” is a Hellenic mistake that seduces Christian philosophers by appealing to the idolatrous desire to reduce reality to what is intelligible. In this paper, the author attempts to describe the difference between “essentialism” and “existentialism” as understood by Gilson. Then, he assesses the case for attributing “essentialism” to Scotus, based on an assessment of Scotus texts and secondary scholarship.