When one thinks of idols, the image that immediately comes to mind is an image of a material thing. Hence those traditions that 'appear' not to have any material idols (I say 'appear', because on careful inspection, every tradition can be said to have its share of material idols) claim superiority over those who do. But then the question one must ask is, what is so abominable about 'material idols'? Simply put, the idea that any material form can have the arrogance to stand in place of the immaterial divine! But this view entails a certain understanding of what is material and divine respectively. This view draws a distinction between matter and spirit and holds them as mutually exclusive and thus in opposition to one another. While this view represents the best of 18th and 19th century western intellectual tradition, which exalted the matter-spirit binary, it needs to be radically updated for those of us living in the 21st century. Matter was then seen in a substantialist sense and opposed to spirit, a view which has since been discarded. 20th century Science and Philosophy has long gone past this opposition. Therefore the real critique of material idol lies in the critique of material substances that claim to stand in place of the divine who is seen as formless and non-material. This view has to be now radically challenged and updated given the contemporary critique of the matter-spirit binary. however that is not what I am particularly interested in this morning.
My interest lies in the idea of 'idol' itself which is seen in a material sense. At the heart of the critique is the view that idols limit and bound that which is infinite and unbounded. If this is what an idol is then I want to assert that not only material idols accomplish this, but equally conceptual idols. The assertion can be seen to have legitimacy because concepts too cannot escape the critique that is advanced against material idols. Concepts limit as much as material idols. One could even say that underlying every material idol there is a conceptual idol, or perhaps even argue that ultimately all we have access to are conceptual idols. But those traditions that oppose material idols do not cease to possess concepts and thus conceptual idols even if they do not have corresponding material idols. For example, the concept 'God' can be seen as a conceptual idol. But this leads to further questions about the nature of language and the delimiting function that appears innate to all language, although this view of language itself can be challenged. But that is another debate.
However, the point being made here is that the distinction that is made between material and conceptual idols is a false opposition and that the onus is particularly on those who believe they do not possess material idols, to examine the conceptual idols to which they give their allegiance. Examples of conceptual idols are identities, institutions, structures, definitions et al. If this be the case, then the larger question for us is to ask ourselves, if we can ever escape idols, and if not then how should we view idols - conceptual and material? A reasonable response could possibly be to begin (a) by accepting the reality of idols and not be naively opposed to the idea of idols. (b) But then to quickly recognize that since they are idols, they do not have the power to stand in for the divine. (c) All concepts and material idols are limited and bounded and hence are unable to represent the unbounded and the beyond, thus even the best of idols, conceptual and material, need to be held provisionally with a willingness to kiss them goodbye when encountered with a deeper revelation.
My interest lies in the idea of 'idol' itself which is seen in a material sense. At the heart of the critique is the view that idols limit and bound that which is infinite and unbounded. If this is what an idol is then I want to assert that not only material idols accomplish this, but equally conceptual idols. The assertion can be seen to have legitimacy because concepts too cannot escape the critique that is advanced against material idols. Concepts limit as much as material idols. One could even say that underlying every material idol there is a conceptual idol, or perhaps even argue that ultimately all we have access to are conceptual idols. But those traditions that oppose material idols do not cease to possess concepts and thus conceptual idols even if they do not have corresponding material idols. For example, the concept 'God' can be seen as a conceptual idol. But this leads to further questions about the nature of language and the delimiting function that appears innate to all language, although this view of language itself can be challenged. But that is another debate.
However, the point being made here is that the distinction that is made between material and conceptual idols is a false opposition and that the onus is particularly on those who believe they do not possess material idols, to examine the conceptual idols to which they give their allegiance. Examples of conceptual idols are identities, institutions, structures, definitions et al. If this be the case, then the larger question for us is to ask ourselves, if we can ever escape idols, and if not then how should we view idols - conceptual and material? A reasonable response could possibly be to begin (a) by accepting the reality of idols and not be naively opposed to the idea of idols. (b) But then to quickly recognize that since they are idols, they do not have the power to stand in for the divine. (c) All concepts and material idols are limited and bounded and hence are unable to represent the unbounded and the beyond, thus even the best of idols, conceptual and material, need to be held provisionally with a willingness to kiss them goodbye when encountered with a deeper revelation.
No comments:
Post a Comment