ICONODULISM, IDOLATRY AND ICONOCLASM: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ICON AND AN IDOL AND THEIR ANTHROPOLOGICAL EXPLICATIONS

Abstract

This article focuses on rethinking the concepts of «idol» and «icon», as well as «iconoclasm», based on the modern theological thought of J.-L. Marion. The purpose of the article is to differentiate the concepts of «idol» and «icon», as well as «iconoclasm», to find new points of understanding of the concepts, based on modern phenomenological research. Research methodology. The basis of the research is the analytical and phenomenological methods for revealing the meaning of concepts. The historical-comparative method, the method of interpretation and generalization are also used. Scientific novelty. The main terminological content of the concepts of «icon», «idol» and «iconoclasm» is considered and analyzed in connection with their rethinking in the latest research. The essential features of concepts, their differences and common points are revealed. The understanding and content of concepts is also deepened, based on the static and dynamic parts of the icon theory. Conclusions. The icon and the idol are ways of seeing and have different relationships to the concept of the transcendent. While the idol focuses its gaze on itself and tries to give a comprehensive answer to our aspirations and perceptions, the icon leaves an open horizon to the unknowable and infinite, remaining «transparent» to the human gaze. The connection of the icon with transcendence lies in the fact that the icon does not give access to something final and comprehensible as a fixed «image of representations» or «way of thinking», but refers to something that cannot be appropriated and completed within the final («idol»). By transferring the concept of transcendence to anthropology and using the patristic division into the «image» and «likeness» of God, we have two parts to the theory of the icon: static and dynamic. The image of God in man, as an image of transcendence and inexhaustibility, refers us to a static part in which the mystery of human existence and of the human person can never be fully understood. The likeness of God, as a constant self-transcendence, refers us to the dynamic part, where man is called to constantly improve himself on his path and to become like Christ. Thus, combining Marion’s theory with the classical icon theory gives us anthropological explications. With them, we can see the relationship between the theory of the icon and the value of each person to the world.