Information about the author: 

Abstract:

In his initial formulation, Pavel Florensky understands the symbol in the spirit of Vyacheslav Ivanov, that is, as a movement a realibus ad realiora — from real things to more real ones, as a reality that surpasses itself. In this surplus of “itself in relation to itself”, for Florensky as for Ivanov, lies the most antinomic locus of reality, where reality becomes something greater than itself — and this is precisely the symbol. However, although Florensky’s earliest reflections on this theme indeed take their starting point from Ivanov, their subsequent development and final outcome differ significantly. This divergence is due to Florensky’s acquaintance with the teachings of Gregory Palamas, whose doctrine he employs to structure his own concept of the symbol within the physical and mathematical framework, thereby imparting a specific “rigidity” and definitiveness to his thought. In this analysis of the concept of the symbol in both authors, a shared point of departure is revealed, but also a different conclusion — one that leads Florensky to regard the Palamite distinction between essence and energies as the foundation of all “more real reality” and the name of God as the “symbol of symbols”, that is, as the fundamental antinomy of all that exists. This position differs from that of Ivanov, which consistently retains art and humanism in a universal sense as its goal — a sense that Florensky, although he never stated this explicitly, ceases to acknowledge from a certain moment onwards.