Я пытаюсь понять, где я такое могла сказать. Я хотела сказать совсем противоположное. Индивидуализм, который принимает человека (СЕБЯ САМОГО) за точку отсчета, вокруг которого вертится вселенная, и не принимает во внимание ГОРИЗОНТ (т.е. фон или там назовем его культурно-исторический контекст, высшую идею, или истину, или можно назвать как угодно, короче, другую точку отсчета) - такой индивидуализм обречен на саморазрушение (каким образом я изложила во второй, кажется, части). Вот может будет понятней так, из Тэйлора:We saw above in the second section how the contemporary culture of authenticity slides towards soft relativism. This gives further force to a general presumption of subjectivism about value: things have significance not of themselves but because people deem them to have it — as though people could determine what is significant, either by decision, or perhaps unwittingly and unwillingly by just feeling that way. This is crazy. I couldn't just decide that the most significant action is wiggling my toes in warm mud. Without a special explanation, this is not an intelligible claim (like the 3,732 hairs above). So I wouldn't know what sense to attribute to someone allegedly feeling that this was so. What could someone mean who said this?Your feeling a certain way can never be sufficient grounds for respecting your position, because your feeling can't determine what is significant. Soft relativism self-destructs.Things take on importance against a background of intelligibility. Let us call this a horizon. It follows that one of the things we can't do, if we are to define ourselves significantly, is suppress or deny the horizons against which things take on significance for us. This is the kind of self-defeating move frequently being carried out in our subjectivist civilization. In stressing the legitimacy of choice between certain options, we very often find ourselves depriving the options of their significance.