Skip to content

Fr. 779

May 13, 2017

If we need to get as clear as possible on the conception of the person most useful for political discourse and political discourse shows as many strands, venues, strategies, etc. for which a different conception of person would be needed and Rawls’ different standpoints (e.g. representative person, constitutional delegate, legislator, etc.) serve much such a function, then we can provisionally admit that it is Rawls’ taxonomic attempt which is on the right track rather than Stout’s attempt to unearth a general, though plastic, individual standpoint. That being said, if the Rawlsian taxonomy takes as its object person as it exists in none of the strands, venues, strategies, etc. or advances a conception thereof which proves unuseful for any of the latter, as Millgram might maintain in The Great Endarkenment, then Stout’s general, though plastic, individual standpoint is much nearer the right track than Rawls if only because it envisions persons as adapting to and across social, cultural and political niches.

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: