Symbol and Myth as Tools for the Theurgic Transformation of Reality in the Works of Pavel Florensky and Vyacheslav Ivanov

The concept of theurgy, as elucidated by Vladimir Solovyov, posits a transformative process wherein empirical reality is transfigured into the ideal through symbolic and mythic means. Pavel Florensky and Vyacheslav Ivanov, two prominent thinkers of the Russian philosophical tradition, offer distinct perspectives on the role of symbol and myth in this theurgic transformation. This article seeks to explore and compare their theories within the framework of theurgical philosophy. It is argued that both thinkers adhered to a similar concept of the symbol, yet differed in their understanding of its role in the theurgic transformation of reality. Pavel Florensky believed that transformation could be achieved through the potentiation of the natural symbol via so-called “mystical cognition”, which involves endowing a phenomenon with personal significance to evoke the awakening and activation of its latent ideal essence. In contrast, Vyacheslav Ivanov contended that the “enhancement” of the symbol to the level of idea is impossible, thus proposing the theory that the effective means of transforming reality is not the symbol as a word, but the myth as a synthetic judgment, which, although based on the symbol, does not organically arise from it, but is formed by intellectual intuition. The conclusion of the study suggests that the difference in approaches between the two philosophers is rooted in ontological premises. Pavel Florensky developed his concept of symbol potentiation based on “name theology”, asserting the identity of name and thing, whereas Vyacheslav Ivanov adopted a more restrained position regarding the power of naming, which led to the development of his predicate theory of myth. By critically examining their theories within the context of theurgical philosophy, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of the complexities of symbol and myth in the quest for spiritual transformation. Further research is needed to explore the practical implications of these theories for modern philosophical and theological discourse.