Abstract

Contemporary philosophers and theologians present an original interpretation of kenosis. Moving away from both classical ontology and the metaphysics of consciousness which marked German idealism, these scholars approach kenosis heuristically as they interpret secular and ecclesial practices. More precisely, their reflection on kenosis leads into an orthopraxis, i.e., into “right action.” The terms in which this right action is expressed vary depending on whether one understands kenosis as a destinal explanation for modernity (Vattimo) or as a vector for a divine erotics (Ward). Kenosis and orthopraxis, however, are not easily identified with one another. Indeed, when a kenotic heuristics leads into an ethical positivity, there is an apparent contradiction — and this is the case, even when the ethical discourse has been ontologically weakened (Vattimo) and characterized by operation and not being (Ward). Is there not simply a contradiction between the notion of emptying, on the one hand, and that of positivity expressed in institutions, on the other? Can the emptiness and the lack which are the defining feature of kenosis be established, be institutionalized without betraying the key idea underlying kenosis? Or has there been some sort of mutation in the idea of kenosis in contemporary thought?