Ars Disputandi Volume 1 (2001) ISSN: 1566 5399

Bart Voorsluis
FREE UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS

Symbols of the Sacred

By Louis Dupr
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000; 131 pp.; pb. $ 20.00; ISBN: 0-8028-4748-x

In Symbols of the Sacred, a small but substantial book, Louis Dupr, Professor Emeritus at Yale University and a Roman Catholic believer, discusses in a learned way the signi cance of religious symbolism for the past as well as for our time. Basically an elaboration of the central chapters of his book The Other Dimension (1972), it is a collection of four texts. In the rst one, `Of Holy Signs', the author discusses the meaning of `symbol' as distinguished from `sign'. Symbols are signs, however, they do not, in contradistinction to signs, point to a signi ed, but they represent. As products of the imagination, they convey a wealth of meaning that supersedes that of concepts. Symbolism has a productive quality: instead of ordering reality it creates a new one. All this is particularly helpful for religious expression, for faith is the awareness of a non-objective, transcendent dimension which is dif cult to express. Dupr, furthermore, insists that all religious symbols must be rooted in language, as becomes apparent in sacred rites. Ritual acts follow rules and they reveal the deep meaning of man as homo ludens. But the act itself does not suf ce, it must be completed by the word. As a consequence, in the next chapter, `The Symbolism of Words', the problems of religious verbal expression are discussed, and the oddity of this kind of language. For Dupr, words are, for many reasons, symbols par excellence. Language establishes systems of meaning with an independent content; language yields rather varied meanings; language explicitly refers to reality; and therefore, it can also refer to meta-empirical reality. These characteristics together make language eminently apt for religious expression. The scopus and nature of religious language is now a hotly debated topic. Dupr opposes the interpretation of language as basically discursive. Moreover, he thinks, objective veri cation as a mark of the empirical world does not apply to a reality which is by nature nonempirical. We must conclude that religious language is possible. But not in the sense Wittgenstein and his followers propose, which argue for religious language as just revealing the outlook of the speaker, or his intention. Religious language cannot be reduced to its epistemic content, but neither is it an expression of intent. For the language of religion must be meaningful for its user, that means, it should refer to reality. On the other hand, this reality is a non-empirical one. Hence, the problem of religious language is not its inner consistency, but the question: Is it able to deal with a reality which transcends the world? Such language must be `thetic', positing a reality beyond the subjective experience of
c February 15, 2002, Ars Disputandi. If you would like to cite this article, please do so as follows: Bart Voorsluis, `Symbols of the Sacred,' Ars Disputandi [http://www.ArsDisputandi.org] 1 (2001), section number.

Bart Voorsluis the speaker. But it must be, at the same time, beyond the reality of the objective world. How is that possible? Dupr's answer is: by analogy `the analogy of names'. But not analogy as understood in Christian metaphysics, rather as a rule of logic helping us to de ne the limits of speech about God. This brings Dupr to the oddity of God-talk and the tradition in Christian thought which feeds upon paradox as the core of religious expression. In the third chapter, `The Symbolism of Religious Art', Dupr expresses his discontent with our lost awareness of the link between art and religion. Originally, art and the experience of the sacred were inseparable. His criticism of this development must not be understood as an endeavour to identify art with the sacred. They are separate areas. In our age, however, the only relation of art with the transcendent is by the word. The bond between artistic and religious expression has been broken. The word is, once more, the central topic of the fourth chapter, `The Myth and its Survival'. Myths are verbally developed symbols, according to Dupr. They are re ective by nature, but in a speci c, non-rational way. Many scholars of myth have related myths to an unconscious origin. Myth is said to have a twofold function, a psychological (as integrating the individual's self), and a sociological one. The last is relevant because in sociology one meets the positivist's view that myth is fundamentally opposed to rational thinking. This thesis has been rejected by others who argue that mythical thinking is as logical and accurate as science. However, according to Dupre, this thesis betrays too much the viewpoint which it opposes. The interpretation of myth as something basically epistemic is false. Moreover, to take it as an instrument of social integration alone, is to diminish the richness of its content. Myth can be considered as the translation of ritual action into a narrative, establishing man's rst re ection on time. It is the story of destiny, telling the events of life. At the same time, myth serves to overcome time's ux by letting it begin in a stable and unquestionable origin. The result is an awareness of the sacred, as distinguished from the profane, an opposition based on the relation between the present ux and its past stability. But what does myth mean for our times? Super cially freed from mythological thinking, modern consciousness is in fact pervaded by myths. The reason for this is that myth gives us a sense of history which our historical consciousness lacks. On the other hand, not recognizing the non-rational character of myth can be misleading and very dangerous, as Marxism and all kinds of nationalism testify. The more we lock out the myth, the more it is driven underground and while undetected, it grows powerful. Myth may be a model, but taken as history it leads to prejudice and repression. The positive meaning of myth, however, is its relevance for religious re ection. In the `Conclusion', the author speaks about our capacity for symbolism. He begins by a warning not to look at the apparent rise of aesthetic attention for religious symbols as a growing attention for religion, because these symbols never transcend the immediate experience. In the remainder of the chapter, alternative views of the symbol are discussed. In earlier times, symbols were seen as fundamentally given to man. Modern man, however, sees himself as creating
Ars Disputandi 1 (2001)

Symbols of the Sacred symbols. We need not to see this as an opposition. Reconciliation of the active aspect with the passive one is possible, according to Dupr, by considering man's creativity itself as a gift. Symbols of the Sacred is a concise but fundamental book, a balanced view, written in a clear and, at the same time, dense style. One must admire Dupr for his extensive knowledge and be thankful for the rationality and fairness which he shows in his discussions with thinkers of all sorts: philosophers, anthropologists, psychologists. Yet, my impression is that his view is, on the whole, somewhat outdated. The reason for this is not the apparent lack of recent literature (for which the author apologizes). It is Dupr's own Weltanschauung, which stems from the intellectual Roman Catholic tradition. He de nitely has a view of his own of this tradition, as becomes, for instance, clear from his rejection of the ontological interpretation of analogy in relation to God. There are also traces of nostalgia, even a sense of a lost world, in the tone of the book. Classical metaphysics, criticized as it may be otherwise, is triumphant in Dupr's striving to reconcile the active with the passive in his view of creativity as a gift in the `Conclusion'. Such a view is based on a Platonic anthropology, man as metaxy, a position in between worldly reality and a reality beyond this nite world. Yet no one who is interested in the subject, should consider these remarks as a serious objection to reading this book.

http://www.ArsDisputandi.org