Information about the author: 

Abstract:

This article discusses the ‘philosophical’ assessments of Russian symbolism in the works of S.S. Khoruzhiy, V.V. Bibikhin and L.A. Gogotishvili. The distinctive features of these thinkers’ approach were considered using the example of their interpretation of the concept of symbol in the works of Father Pavel Florensky. This concept was considered in the perspective of antinomy as a fundamental principle of Florensky’s philosophy. The symbol as ‘being that is greater than itself...’ combines two antinomic meanings: the immanent manifested and the transcendent unmanifested but manifestable. Nevertheless, Khoruzhiy proposed a non-antinomical reading of Florensky’s symbolism and criticised it for its ‘sensual’ character and impersonalism. Bibikhin understood Florensky’s symbolism antinomically — the symbolised is unlike the symbol. However, he also proposed resolving this antinomy by rejecting the symbol in favour of ‘action’ (the events of things as they are). Gogotishvili also asserted the antinomy of Florensky’s symbol, but she proposed a communicative interpretation of Florensky’s symbolism, where the symbol appears as an instrument of communication with the symbolised. In addition, her concept implied a phenomenological dimension, namely, the consideration of the verbal symbol from intentional and attentional perspectives. The conclusion presents a summary of the types of approach in question, combines their most significant provisions and proposes a working concept of Florensky’s symbol.