Following from the preceding, how does our account avoid the charge of making a “free-floating demand to make things ‘richer’ or ‘more sophisticated’ by adding complexity, detail, or levels of analysis, in the absence of any real way of disciplining how [one] add[s] them”? In reality, Healy’s demands join those of another thinker whose thought we have recently confronted. Onora O’Neill’s Towards justice and virtue similarly charges that particularists, the would-be thinkers of diversity, have remarkably little to say about diversity insofar as the particularist approach is insular rather than transversal. If in adding detail, the particularist does not find certain lines to tie the details together, then the particularist can, properly speak, take nothing away. The whole gives or falls apart at the slightest pressure.
To this charge, we will respond in five short parts to show just how we go beyond the claim for greater nuance and seek to give new direction following the process of elaboration.
- To any complication of selfhood, there must be joined a theoretical throughline which itself issues in a new set of (discursive) practices which aim at relaunching discussion.
- If we place additional emphasis on the (Stoutian) notion of individuality, it is with the intent of showing just how greater attention to individuality reinforces legal subjectivity and the latter the former.
- We do not allow all information to pass through our theoretical filter; we restrict this to linguistic and empirical considerations subject to verification thereby.
- In particular, we seek to remedy unclear uses of self as linked to its empirical, spiritual and linguistic purposes so as to establish a baseline notion by which to work.
- Even in diversifying discursive practices and public justification, we, like Stout, maintain certain principles which effectively cannot be up for discussion and thus show the theoretical advances or condensations stemming from the process in question.