Signs and Signs and SymbolsSymbols

The difference between Symbols The difference between Symbols and Signs - 1and Signs - 1

““Symbols have one characteristic in common Symbols have one characteristic in common with signs; they point beyond themselves to with signs; they point beyond themselves to something else. The red sign at the street something else. The red sign at the street corner points to the order to stop the corner points to the order to stop the movements of cars at certain intervals. A red movements of cars at certain intervals. A red light and the stopping of cars have essentially light and the stopping of cars have essentially no relation to each other, but no relation to each other, but conventionally conventionally they are united as long as the convention lasts.” they are united as long as the convention lasts.”

The difference between Symbols The difference between Symbols and Signs - 2and Signs - 2

““The same is true of letters and numbers and The same is true of letters and numbers and partly even words. They point beyond partly even words. They point beyond themselves to sounds and meanings. They are themselves to sounds and meanings. They are given this special function by convention within a given this special function by convention within a nation or by international conventions, as nation or by international conventions, as mathematical signs. Sometimes such signs are mathematical signs. Sometimes such signs are called symbols; but this is unfortunate because it called symbols; but this is unfortunate because it makes the distinction between signs and symbols makes the distinction between signs and symbols more difficult. Decisive is the fact that more difficult. Decisive is the fact that signs do signs do not participate in the reality of that to which not participate in the reality of that to which they pointthey point, while symbols do. Therefore, signs , while symbols do. Therefore, signs can be replaced for reasons of expediency or can be replaced for reasons of expediency or convention, while symbols cannot.”convention, while symbols cannot.”

Signs as Signs as Arbitrary SignifiersArbitrary Signifiers

So, when we talk of the relationship of energy and matter we So, when we talk of the relationship of energy and matter we say say E=MCE=MC22. . This is ‘sign language’. There is no reason why we should This is ‘sign language’. There is no reason why we should not say not say X=YZX=YZ22. . This is because we are talking the language of maths and This is because we are talking the language of maths and physics where the sign is identified with that to which it physics where the sign is identified with that to which it points. points.

However, when we talk of God we are dealing with an: However, when we talk of God we are dealing with an: "…area of human awareness and communication where what "…area of human awareness and communication where what

we think and what we say can never be perfectly clear."  we think and what we say can never be perfectly clear." 

We are in the area of symbol. We are in the area of symbol.

Symbols are AmbiguousSymbols are Ambiguous

This ambiguity of symbols, - their inability This ambiguity of symbols, - their inability to precisely identify something- is a to precisely identify something- is a frustration to our culture which is still frustration to our culture which is still strongly infected with the excessive strongly infected with the excessive rationalism of the logical positivists. But rationalism of the logical positivists. But the ambiguity and imprecision of symbols the ambiguity and imprecision of symbols is their strength for Tillich.is their strength for Tillich.

AmbiguityAmbiguity

"They open up levels of reality which otherwise are hidden and cannot be grasped in any other way."

For Tillich Symbols do several things: For Tillich Symbols do several things: – Point beyond themselves to something else.Point beyond themselves to something else.– Participate in the reality to which they point.Participate in the reality to which they point.– Open up levels of reality which are otherwise closed to us.Open up levels of reality which are otherwise closed to us.– Unlock dimensions and elements of our soul which correspond Unlock dimensions and elements of our soul which correspond

to the dimensions and elements of reality.to the dimensions and elements of reality.

Crucially symbols actually make present what they Crucially symbols actually make present what they represent, and that in a transformative way, because represent, and that in a transformative way, because they participate in the reality to which they point. they participate in the reality to which they point. That is why Tillich says, That is why Tillich says,

““One should never say ‘only a symbol’, but one should One should never say ‘only a symbol’, but one should say, ‘not less than a symbol’.” say, ‘not less than a symbol’.”

This is because symbols are what they are but are also, This is because symbols are what they are but are also, in a way in a way moremore than what they are. than what they are.

To understand this we need to go back to the distinction To understand this we need to go back to the distinction between signs and symbols.between signs and symbols.

Signs are arbitrary signifiers, pointing beyond themselves Signs are arbitrary signifiers, pointing beyond themselves toward something else, but having no essential or necessary toward something else, but having no essential or necessary relationship to their referents. A written word is an relationship to their referents. A written word is an outstanding example of the purely arbitrary connection outstanding example of the purely arbitrary connection between a sign (the word on the page) and its referent (the between a sign (the word on the page) and its referent (the sound-image and concept to which the written word points). sound-image and concept to which the written word points).

We know to think of edible things when we see the word We know to think of edible things when we see the word "food," but the four letters in that word have no necessary "food," but the four letters in that word have no necessary relationship with the sound-image of that word in spoken relationship with the sound-image of that word in spoken language, nor do they have a necessary relationship with the language, nor do they have a necessary relationship with the concept of edible things.concept of edible things.

Even less does the written word "food" hold a necessary Even less does the written word "food" hold a necessary relationship to actual edible things. Only through a process of relationship to actual edible things. Only through a process of association and social convention has this written sign come association and social convention has this written sign come to signify the sound-image, concept, and objects to which the to signify the sound-image, concept, and objects to which the word points.word points.

A symbol, like a sign, points to something beyond A symbol, like a sign, points to something beyond the symbol itself. Unlike a sign, however, which is the symbol itself. Unlike a sign, however, which is only arbitrarily linked to its referent, a symbol only arbitrarily linked to its referent, a symbol "participates in the reality" to which it points. "participates in the reality" to which it points.

Through their liturgical use, the written words of 1 Through their liturgical use, the written words of 1 Corinthians 23-25…Corinthians 23-25…"Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you. "Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you. This do in remembrance of me"This do in remembrance of me" ……have ceased to be merely signs. have ceased to be merely signs.

The Eucharistic meal is an example of a religious The Eucharistic meal is an example of a religious symbol. The bread and wine are not incidental to the symbol. The bread and wine are not incidental to the symbol's power, but integral to it. Liturgical and symbol's power, but integral to it. Liturgical and sacramental activity and language do not simply sacramental activity and language do not simply signify their meanings; they participate in their signify their meanings; they participate in their meanings. meanings.

How the Eucharist works as How the Eucharist works as SymbolSymbol

The meaning of the Eucharist could not be The meaning of the Eucharist could not be conveyed with the replacement of the bread and conveyed with the replacement of the bread and wine by other "signs," because the meaning of wine by other "signs," because the meaning of the action actually depends on their specific the action actually depends on their specific qualities as symbols. In fact, it seems that one of qualities as symbols. In fact, it seems that one of the crucial distinctions between a sign and a the crucial distinctions between a sign and a symbol is that the referent (or object) of a symbol is that the referent (or object) of a symbol cannot be perceived separately to the symbol cannot be perceived separately to the symbol, whereas the referent of a sign is symbol, whereas the referent of a sign is independent of the sign assigned to it.independent of the sign assigned to it.

God as SymbolGod as SymbolTillich views God as the greatest of religious symbols, Tillich views God as the greatest of religious symbols, but also says that it is inappropriate to "simply say that but also says that it is inappropriate to "simply say that God is a symbol." God is a symbol." There are two crucial aspects of the nature of the symbol There are two crucial aspects of the nature of the symbol of God: a transcendent aspect and an immanent aspect. of God: a transcendent aspect and an immanent aspect. First, the symbol "God" conveys above all else First, the symbol "God" conveys above all else transcendence. transcendence. The First Commandment introduces God's The First Commandment introduces God's transcendence in mythic language: "Thou shalt have no transcendence in mythic language: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"; Anselm uses the language of other gods before me"; Anselm uses the language of Greek philosophy: "God is that than which nothing Greek philosophy: "God is that than which nothing greater can be imagined." greater can be imagined." In each case, the definitions point to something real that In each case, the definitions point to something real that transcends everything; including statements made about transcends everything; including statements made about that reality. that reality. The referent of "God" is transcendence. The referent of "God" is transcendence.

But it’s not quite that simple…!But it’s not quite that simple…!

In terms of its referent, however, the In terms of its referent, however, the symbol "God" must be seen to include a symbol "God" must be seen to include a non-symbolic element, for God's non-symbolic element, for God's transcendence is not merely symbolic but transcendence is not merely symbolic but real. real. It is, however, the immanent aspect of the It is, however, the immanent aspect of the symbol "God" that allows the symbol to symbol "God" that allows the symbol to convey the transcendence to which the convey the transcendence to which the symbol points and in which it participates. symbol points and in which it participates.

Understanding God as SymbolUnderstanding God as Symbol

Symbols, by their nature, emerge from our Symbols, by their nature, emerge from our experience of the world, but our experience is experience of the world, but our experience is not transcendent but specific. We cannot, in not transcendent but specific. We cannot, in other words, simply have an experience of God’s other words, simply have an experience of God’s transcendent nature, which Tillich calls Being-in-transcendent nature, which Tillich calls Being-in-Itself. Itself. The symbol "God" combines a transcendent and The symbol "God" combines a transcendent and an immanent aspect, for the qualities that make an immanent aspect, for the qualities that make God thinkable are taken from experienced God thinkable are taken from experienced qualities we have ourselves. These qualities are qualities we have ourselves. These qualities are immediately recognizable as symbolic when we immediately recognizable as symbolic when we realize that they convey the ultimacy or realize that they convey the ultimacy or transcendence of God even though no one of transcendence of God even though no one of them can be literally applied to God. them can be literally applied to God.

Understanding God as Symbol Understanding God as Symbol cont…cont…

Without the qualities, however, the transcendence of Without the qualities, however, the transcendence of God would be incomprehensible – he has to have God would be incomprehensible – he has to have somesome qualities we are familiar with or we would have no idea qualities we are familiar with or we would have no idea what he is like. what he is like. The symbolization of God is a human activity apparent in The symbolization of God is a human activity apparent in religious devotion and theological reflection. The religious devotion and theological reflection. The immanent nature of the symbol provides us with immanent nature of the symbol provides us with characteristics of God, but those characteristics point us characteristics of God, but those characteristics point us toward the transcendence that is God. Without the toward the transcendence that is God. Without the immanence of the symbol, however, we could never be immanence of the symbol, however, we could never be pointed toward transcendence. This is why religious pointed toward transcendence. This is why religious symbols not only point to but also participate in the symbols not only point to but also participate in the reality to which they point.reality to which they point.

The Most Perfect SymbolThe Most Perfect Symbol

If God, as Symbol, needs to contain both If God, as Symbol, needs to contain both an immanent aspect (for our an immanent aspect (for our understanding) and a transcendent aspect understanding) and a transcendent aspect (to point to something greater) then the (to point to something greater) then the Bible offers us one example of a perfectly Bible offers us one example of a perfectly symbolic God.symbolic God.This is Jesus, who, through being This is Jesus, who, through being incarnates is made Immanent yet, though incarnates is made Immanent yet, though his resurrection and ascension is also his resurrection and ascension is also Transcendent.Transcendent.

Jesus in Jesus in otherother Philosophy Philosophy

It is of interest to note that this fits very well in to It is of interest to note that this fits very well in to the philosophies of GWF Hegel and Immanuel the philosophies of GWF Hegel and Immanuel Kant.Kant.

Both Kant and Hegel believe there is a realm of Both Kant and Hegel believe there is a realm of knowledge to which we either can never, or knowledge to which we either can never, or would struggle to access. This is the world of the would struggle to access. This is the world of the Noumenal/The Spirit.Noumenal/The Spirit.

Jesus comes ‘from’ this world and makes it Jesus comes ‘from’ this world and makes it present in the world of the Phenomenal/Illusion.present in the world of the Phenomenal/Illusion.

Some final thoughtsSome final thoughts

Tillich’s point, really, is that religious talk is Tillich’s point, really, is that religious talk is often symbolic – it is what it is but it also often symbolic – it is what it is but it also points to something great. Whilst we may points to something great. Whilst we may be able to critique it as a sign – as Ayer, be able to critique it as a sign – as Ayer, and the Logical Positivists would try and and the Logical Positivists would try and do – we can’t critique what it points to or do – we can’t critique what it points to or reveals. This extra dimension is what the reveals. This extra dimension is what the Logical Positivists were missing and it is in Logical Positivists were missing and it is in this way that we can successfully talk of this way that we can successfully talk of God.God.