It is obvious that T. believes that a better understanding can be had by recourse to a pragmatic epistemology.
Substitutional accounts dismiss the felt experience of the original account as irrelevant.
Consequently they cannot recognize public, nor performative goods. The laws are important because they are ours . . . . The result of this line of thinking is to never accept the necessarily false promise of the reductionist who claims that nothing is lost in accepting the theoretical substitute. Plato promises that what is left behind is merely the gross. Whereas pragmatists claim that all substitutional abstractions must necessarily originate from the original embodied experience.