Александр Конев (alexander_konev) wrote,
Александр Конев

И снова к вопросу о теологии символа

Merold Westphal в своей статье Continental Philosophy of Religion пишет о принципиальном различении, которое Жан-Люк Марион делает между иконой и идолом.

… Marion’s phenomenology is substantive. It involves a revision of the subject-object relation as portrayed by Husserl in terms of the correlation of noesis (intentional act) and noema (intentional object). In two of his theological works (1991 and 2001), Marion presents a phenomenological distinction between the idol and the icon. The distinction is theologically neutral since it does not concern the content of the intentional object but rather the mode in which it is intended. It follows, of course, that the same content could be an idol in one situation and an icon in another. An object of presumptive religious significance is an idol when the gaze comes to rest on it, assuming that it is fully present to the gaze and that there is no need to think about that which has surpassed and escaped the gaze. The (re)presentation is fully adequate to what is given. In this way, the object becomes a mirror of the gaze, which in turn becomes the measure of the object. Whatever my net doesn’t catch isn’t a fish. The icon is just the opposite. It is apprehended as that which cannot be fully grasped by the gaze but always exceeds its constituting activity. This does not make the icon a sign, for what is given in the icon does not point beyond itself to something other than itself, but rather to itself as exceeding its givenness. Marion argues that the distinction between idol and icon applies to our concepts just as much as to our images.
Tags: Жан-Люк Марион, идол, икона, символ, теология
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded