“Humbled onto Death”: Kenosis and Tsimtsum as the Two Models of Divine Self-Negation

IF 0.6 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Agata Bielik-Robson
{"title":"“Humbled onto Death”: Kenosis and Tsimtsum as the Two Models of Divine Self-Negation","authors":"Agata Bielik-Robson","doi":"10.3390/philosophies9050134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay reflects on the concept of the death of God as part and parcel of modern philosophical theology: a genre of thinking that came into existence with Hegel’s announcement of the “speculative Good Friday” as the most natural expression of die Religion der neuen Zeiten, “the religion of modern times”. In my interpretation, the death of God not only does not spell the end of the era of atheism but, on the contrary, inaugurates a new era of characteristically modern theism that steers away from theological absolutism. The new theos is no longer conceived as the eternal omnipotent Absolute but as the Derridean diminished Infinite: contracted and self-negated—even “unto death”. Such God, however, although coming to the foremost visibly in modernity, is not completely new to the monotheistic religions, which from the beginning are engaged in the heated debate concerning the status of the divine power: is it absolute and unlimited or rather self-restricted and conditioned? I will enter this debate by conducting a comparison between the two traditional models of divine self-restriction—Christian kenosis and Jewish-kabbalistic tsimtsum—and then present their modernised philosophical variants, most of all in the thought of Hegel.","PeriodicalId":31446,"journal":{"name":"Philosophies","volume":"159 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9050134","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This essay reflects on the concept of the death of God as part and parcel of modern philosophical theology: a genre of thinking that came into existence with Hegel’s announcement of the “speculative Good Friday” as the most natural expression of die Religion der neuen Zeiten, “the religion of modern times”. In my interpretation, the death of God not only does not spell the end of the era of atheism but, on the contrary, inaugurates a new era of characteristically modern theism that steers away from theological absolutism. The new theos is no longer conceived as the eternal omnipotent Absolute but as the Derridean diminished Infinite: contracted and self-negated—even “unto death”. Such God, however, although coming to the foremost visibly in modernity, is not completely new to the monotheistic religions, which from the beginning are engaged in the heated debate concerning the status of the divine power: is it absolute and unlimited or rather self-restricted and conditioned? I will enter this debate by conducting a comparison between the two traditional models of divine self-restriction—Christian kenosis and Jewish-kabbalistic tsimtsum—and then present their modernised philosophical variants, most of all in the thought of Hegel.
"谦卑至死":作为神性自我否定两种模式的 "克诺西斯"(Kenosis)和 "尖措"(Timtsum
这篇文章对作为现代哲学神学重要组成部分的上帝之死这一概念进行了反思:黑格尔宣布 "臆想的耶稣受难日 "是 "现代宗教"(die Religion der neuen Zeiten)最自然的表达方式之后,这一思想流派便应运而生。在我的解释中,上帝之死不仅不意味着无神论时代的终结,相反,它开启了一个具有现代特色的新时代,即远离神学绝对主义的新时代。新的神不再是永恒的全能的绝对神,而是德里达式的缩小的无限神:收缩的、自我否定的,甚至是 "至死 "的。然而,这样的神虽然在现代性中显得尤为突出,但对于一神教来说却并非全新的事物,一神教从一开始就对神力的地位展开了激烈的争论:神力是绝对的、无限的,还是自我限制的、有条件的?我将通过比较两种传统的神力自我限制模式--基督教的 "克诺斯"(kenosis)和犹太教的 "卡巴拉"(tsimtsum)--进入这场争论,然后介绍它们的现代哲学变体,尤其是黑格尔思想中的变体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Philosophies
Philosophies Multiple-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
122
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信