Kant admits that his philosophical interpretation of the fall is not “intended for Scriptural exegesis, which lies outside the boundaries of the competence of mere reason.” Putting the “historical account” to “moral use” leaves the issue of the writer’s intention, the text’s meaning, historicity to the side.
But perhaps the moral and philosophical use of the narrative is precisely in its historicity – the fact that the fall occurred in time, and was a fall from an original innocence.
How can Kant know otherwise? Only because his interpretation according to “mere reason” and for “moral use” excludes time and history from the outset. He already knows – somehow – that “historical cognition . . . has no intrinsic relation” to moral progress.
Undercover in Canada’s Lawless Abortion Industry
On November 27, 2023, thirty-six-year-old Alissa Golob walked through the doors of the Cabbagetown Women’s Clinic in…
The Return of Blasphemy Laws?
Over my many years in the U.S., I have resisted the temptation to buy into the catastrophism…
The Fourth Watch
The following is an excerpt from the first edition of The Fourth Watch, a newsletter about Catholicism from First…