The struggle seems to be aimed at less constrained, more inventive and somehow more authentic minds. Now I see the basis for that as a thoroughly anti-cartesian view of the subject that is no longer seen as given as a variable independent of the world and yet is not unreachable by our conscious life. I take Davidson and Foucault to be, in different ways, espousing this view. I recently found a good way to express it in "How To Cure A Fanatic" by Amos Oz:
John Donne said that no man is an island. Amos Oz acknowledges that the phrase is wonderful but mends it a bit: no man and no woman is an island and no man and no women is a confined land or a molecule of firm land. We are penninsulas. That's why we have the right to look at the ocean.
I'd like to understand better what you mean by "less constrained, more inventive and somehow more authentic minds" here.
Is this the ultimate purpose of the liberation of subjectivity?
Phil, I'm very tempted to just say, yes, what else should be the purpose? Make human persons habitable, in the wonderful metaphor once crafted by Semprun (see "The Cattle Truck" or "Le Grand Voyage"). — HilanBensusan