Post by Mercy for All on May 6, 2021 15:08:16 GMT
Not all symbolism is allegory. Most actually is not.
"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history—true or feigned—with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers." - J.R.R. Tolkien
Note the distinction: "feigned history" is not allegory.
Symbols are real. Symbols are not "untrue." What is a symbol? Something that encapsulates truth.
Somebody described it this way: dragons are real. Dragons are symbolic abstractions of threat—an aggregate generalization of a predatory snake, bird, and cat. Those were all "real" threats to primitive man. The dragon is an abstraction of the "collective threat." Although there is no physical referent for the symbol (i.e., there is no one specific type of animal that is an dragon), it is "real" as much as any threat is real. And threats are real.
Coffee is a symbol. Or many symbols. It can symbolize a meeting with a friend or acquaintance at a neutral location ("Let's do coffee—but I'll be drinking tea"). It can symbolize a fundamental pillar of economics (for a country, say, like Columbia). It can symbolize a morning waking ritual ("I can't function until I've done my coffee"). It can mean all those things. It is a real symbol, and yet it also has a direct, physical referent. It is "real" in the way that reductionists use the word (i.e., "only what is physical is 'real'").
Symbols have meaning, and they are real, but they may or may not have a non-abstract, physical referent.
The national (symbolic) animal of Scotland is the unicorn. That was chosen because it means something. It's not "nothing." Incidentally, it also likely has a direct, non-abstract physical referent. Apparently in some place in Africa, white goats were raised and their two horns chemically softened and twined together over time. Presumably Europeans saw them and mistook them for young horses with a single horn. Or the artists just did a bad job representing the descriptions that were related to them. It's probably why many medieval representations depict unicorns with a beard (something which horses do not have, but goats do).
Symbols are everywhere. Anything to which we ascribe meaning that goes beyond its immediate, direct physical reference, is a "symbol." A throne is a chair, but it's not just a chair. And there are things that do not communicate a "physical fact" which can also be symbols rich with meaning. "God is a rock." God is not made of stone. That is a symbolic statement.
But it's not allegory. Much of the Biblical text is symbolic. Some of the symbolic texts have a direct historical referent. Others do not. That doesn't make it "not true." Unless, of course, you're some kind of historical or materialist reductionist. Does that mean that the text means anything to anyone? No. It means that the first question might need to be: what did it mean to its original readers? What is this saying that is true?
"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history—true or feigned—with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers." - J.R.R. Tolkien
Note the distinction: "feigned history" is not allegory.
Symbols are real. Symbols are not "untrue." What is a symbol? Something that encapsulates truth.
Somebody described it this way: dragons are real. Dragons are symbolic abstractions of threat—an aggregate generalization of a predatory snake, bird, and cat. Those were all "real" threats to primitive man. The dragon is an abstraction of the "collective threat." Although there is no physical referent for the symbol (i.e., there is no one specific type of animal that is an dragon), it is "real" as much as any threat is real. And threats are real.
Coffee is a symbol. Or many symbols. It can symbolize a meeting with a friend or acquaintance at a neutral location ("Let's do coffee—but I'll be drinking tea"). It can symbolize a fundamental pillar of economics (for a country, say, like Columbia). It can symbolize a morning waking ritual ("I can't function until I've done my coffee"). It can mean all those things. It is a real symbol, and yet it also has a direct, physical referent. It is "real" in the way that reductionists use the word (i.e., "only what is physical is 'real'").
Symbols have meaning, and they are real, but they may or may not have a non-abstract, physical referent.
The national (symbolic) animal of Scotland is the unicorn. That was chosen because it means something. It's not "nothing." Incidentally, it also likely has a direct, non-abstract physical referent. Apparently in some place in Africa, white goats were raised and their two horns chemically softened and twined together over time. Presumably Europeans saw them and mistook them for young horses with a single horn. Or the artists just did a bad job representing the descriptions that were related to them. It's probably why many medieval representations depict unicorns with a beard (something which horses do not have, but goats do).
Symbols are everywhere. Anything to which we ascribe meaning that goes beyond its immediate, direct physical reference, is a "symbol." A throne is a chair, but it's not just a chair. And there are things that do not communicate a "physical fact" which can also be symbols rich with meaning. "God is a rock." God is not made of stone. That is a symbolic statement.
But it's not allegory. Much of the Biblical text is symbolic. Some of the symbolic texts have a direct historical referent. Others do not. That doesn't make it "not true." Unless, of course, you're some kind of historical or materialist reductionist. Does that mean that the text means anything to anyone? No. It means that the first question might need to be: what did it mean to its original readers? What is this saying that is true?
