, and argue for
enfranchising the non-resident Francophile and disenfranchising the monks and the
disengaged sports stars and finance capitalists. But unless Bauböck is
prepared to accept this, the psychological reading of the link postulated in
ACS must be abandoned.
Perhaps there is some thirdway of reading ACS, and the
connected idea of a “citizen stakeholder”, that would yield
plausible answers both to the jurisdiction
deﬁnitive account of what our
thinking is, beyond its being a capacity for synthesis, and given that thinking
itself relies on natural processes (while not being reducible to them), this is not
a mystical question. The fact is that in these terms our capacity for manipulation of nature depends on something which is as cognitively inaccessible to us
as nature is in itself.
Kant’s attention in the CJ to trying to link our cognitive and ethical capacities via a thirdway of relating to the world also points to his awareness of the
dangers that may result if we cannot make