I haven’t read the book so I might be full of it but here’s my take.
I take humanization to mean human flourishing, hence why humanization is “axiologically” our central problem, i.e. it’s the problem of realizing what we are or are meant to be.
I think they’re saying that once you recognize the possibility of flourishing you have to recognize the logical/“ontological” possibility of it’s negation (dehumanization), and that in fact dehumanization isn’t just a possibility, it’s the norm in our society (historical reality) which raises the question of whether humanization is even possible in our historical situation.
Then they say that both humanization and dehumanization are possibilities if we are aware of our incompletion, which I guess means that if we are aware of this historical situation we can change it to promote humanization.
I haven’t read the book so I might be full of it but here’s my take.
I take humanization to mean human flourishing, hence why humanization is “axiologically” our central problem, i.e. it’s the problem of realizing what we are or are meant to be.
I think they’re saying that once you recognize the possibility of flourishing you have to recognize the logical/“ontological” possibility of it’s negation (dehumanization), and that in fact dehumanization isn’t just a possibility, it’s the norm in our society (historical reality) which raises the question of whether humanization is even possible in our historical situation.
Then they say that both humanization and dehumanization are possibilities if we are aware of our incompletion, which I guess means that if we are aware of this historical situation we can change it to promote humanization.