Freedom, Intentionality, and Trinitarian Love in Edith Stein’s Thought—The Need for a Phenomenology–Theology Dialogue to Have a Deeper Understanding of It

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It would be better to say more about Edith Stein's anthropolgy starting briefly from her phenomenological works in order to justify freedom in correlation with free acts as they are described in  "Philosophy of Psychology and Humanities".

Author Response

Thank you very much for you suggestion. I have introduced some lines (69-76) commenting on Steinian anthropology. In note 7 I suggested the reading of two authors (Wulf and Pezzella) for further deepening.

I upload a new version (changes are marked in orange).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this is an interesting and thoroughly worked out article. It is well structured. The textual evidence is very solid, and the arguments and interpretations are convincing.

Objections might be that the text is a bit too compact and tends to cover too much, both text-wise and as far as issues are concerned. 

Just a few examples:

– in section 4, from line 291sq (can-should), the rendering of Stein is a compact summary, somewhat internal to Stein’s own “lexique”. 

– from line 461sq, the presentation of Stein’s reading of Duns Scotus seems not strictly necessary.

– the discussion of Liebesgemeinschaft in section 5 is very long and the discussions comparing Stein-Husserl could be omitted. In the same section 5, the thematic of the spousal relationship, of man-woman and of women and the priesthood also seem like “detours” possible to omit. 

Simplifying the complexity and the many detours would make the rich and fruitful main line and the main points of the article shine even more clearly, which would be worth it. Also, a more stringent organization would make it possible to developpe some points further where necessary. 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions.

• I simplified Scotus’ contribution to Stein's thought (lines 477-485). This meant reducing four notes (I integrated the new numbering).
• I highlighted the participation of the concept Liebesgemeinschaft in order to understand its relevance in point 5. I updated the title of that point and inserted a brief commentary on it (lines 495-496). That meant improving footnote 107.

About what you suggest regarding:

• The comparison between Husserl and Stein, I have decided to keep it, since I have seen in many articles that Stein is attributed ideas proper to Husserlian thought. I think making the distinction is a contribution in that sense.
• Regarding the spousal relationship, it is an important part of the overall picture of the use of the community of love, so removing it would leave the analysis incomplete.  

With all the changes, the article was reduced from 20 to 19 pages.

I upload the file with the applied changes

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf