SYMBOL AS A CATEGORY OF CULTURE AND ITS FUNCTIONAL LOAD THROUGH THE PRISM OF PHILOSOPPHICAL DOCTRINES

Main Article Content

Olga BOYKO

Abstract

Introduction The attention is drawn to the role of the symbol in the modern world of intercultural communication. Hence the need for theoretical and methodological understanding of the symbol as a key phenomenon of culture, the understanding of the place and role of symbols in intercultural communication, the study of the symbols of different peoples. Purpose. The purpose of this work - consideration and understanding of the symbol as a functional culture. The article is an analysis of the complex of anthropological ideas of researchers of different directions and schools in terms of understanding the symbol. Results It is shown that the symbol is a category of culture and it has a functional load. These ideas are revealed through the prism of the ideas of representatives of philosophical anthropology and the philosophy of symbolism. The article deals with the set of social functions of a symbol in culture. The role of symbolic production in social communication is shown. The attention is paid to the sources of symbolic production: religion, art, technology, etc. The influence of the symbol in the ordering of the social world and the practice of everyday life is considered. Originality. The interpretation of E. Cassirer's ideas about a symbol in the modern information society is shown, namely, due to certain properties of the symbol of its use for managing the collective unconscious. Conclusion. On the basis of symbolization, the whole culture was built and built now. The symbol contains much more information than the usual word. The symbol, as a rule, relies on a more ancient arsenal of influence than modern culturological acquisitions and technology of influence.

Article Details

Section
PHILOSOPHY OF CULTURE, AESTHETICS, PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

References

Whitehead, A. N. (1999). Symbolism, its meaning and influence. Tomsk: Aquarius (in Russ.)

Jung, C. G. (1991). Archetype and Symbol. Moscow: Renaissance (in Russ.)

Langer, S. (2000). Philosophy in a new way. Moscow: Respublika (in Russ.)

Levi-Strauss, K. (1985). Structural Anthropology. Moscow: Science (in Russ.)

Florensky, P. A. (1996). Iconostasis. Works, 2, 419-526. Moscow: Thought (in Russ.)

Losiev, A. F. (1995). The problem of the symbol and realistic art. Moscow: Art (in Russ.)

Derrida, J. (1996). Positions. Kiev: D. L. (in Russ.)

Deleuze, G. (1998). Difference and repetition. SPb.: Petropolis (in Russ.)

Baudrillard, J. (2000). Symbolic exchange and death. Moscow: Dobrosvet (in Russ.)

Cassirer, E. (2000). Selected Works: the individual and the cosmos. Moscow, St. Petersburg: The University's Book (in Russ.)

Averintsev, S. S. (2001). Sofia-logos. Kyiv: Duh i Litera (in Ukr.)

Cassirer, E. (2002). Philosophy of symbolic forms, 3: Phenomenology of cognition. Moscow, St. Petersburg (in Russ.)