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.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
