> In the quotation you like so much, as far as I can tell the idea is that
> we should uphold universal rights and principles as long as we regard
> their meaning as contingent and constructed, subject to change and
> political contestation. Seems eminently reasonable. But can you explain
> how that's any different from John Stuart Mill?
>
> For that matter, here's Mill on epistemology:
>
>> Of nature, or anything whatever external to ourselves, we know . . .
>> nothing, except the facts which present themselves to our senses, and
>> such other facts as may, by analogy, be inferred from these...[This
>> means that the] nature and laws of Things in themselves, or of the
>> hidden causes of the phenomena which are the objects of experience
>> [are] radically inaccessible to the human faculties.
==============
Which is incoherent and question begging for Kantian and post-Kantian discourses or, if you prefer, reasons.
Why are lefties never threatened by post-Kantian theory? :-)
Ian