On the Meaning of the Term Symbol in the Writings of Plutarch of Chaeronea
On the Meaning of the Term Symbol in the Writings of Plutarch of Chaeronea

Summary/Abstract: Plutarch of Chaeronea was a prominent Middle Platonist, influential both in early Christian Platonism and in pagan Neoplatonic schools. One of the significant markers of this succession is an increasing interest in symbolism and terminological usage of the term symbol. As Plutarch provided almost no explicit theory of symbolism, this research focuses on the contextual word usage in his writings, its analysis and reconstruction of Plutarchian symbolism in the philosophical milieu of his time. Plutarch understands symbol as a two-level entity, which combines an ordinary object or object-related action with a signification of some other entity that is absent, invisible or otherwise imperceptible, so a symbol points to it or acts instead of it. Unlike signs, symbols are ambiguous and may have multiple meanings. Moreover, the polysemanticism of a symbol is considered its strong advantage that reveals the ontological profundity of the symbolized entity. Symbols may appear odd and amazing, thus provoking philosophical inspiration in a person trying to decipher them. Along with single symbols, Plutarch provides examples of integral symbolic systems, among which he mentions human languages. Finally, symbols may be not only passive pointers or reminders but also actors, which influence human decisions and deeds. Plutarch provides a detailed description of the way daemons use symbols as a means to induce mortals to make correct choices. The general pattern of Plutarchian symbolism can be compared with similar conceptions of Clement of Alexandria, Porphyry of Tyre, and Iamblichus of Chalcis.

• Details
• Contents