Methods of Philosophic Critique Native to the Laozi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a clear thesis, which is argued for tightly and coherently in three stages. The paper is of positive value to the field of philosophic critique, and corrects the one-sidely Western evaluation of the topic by allowing the text of Lao-Zhuang, and Laozi in particular, to speak in its own terms. This paper does so by carefully examining the Chinese Daoist scholars and comparing their views with their Western colleagues.

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for their helpful comments. Nothing specific has been suggested for revision and as such no revisions have been made based on the reviewers comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

While there are some aspects of the piece that I find lacking, these pertain largely to stylistic features: I see the framing in terms of the China-West distinction as unhelpful and distracting from the beautiful work done by the author when s/he begins to explain what she has in mind for the method of criticism deployed by the Laozi.

I think the piece is slightly marred by this framing not because it is necessarily wrong, but rather because it opens a can of worms about whether “the West” (or “Western”) is too broad a category. It forces some countries and cultures to be associated or even conflated with some cultures and countries they’d rather not be. It suggests a false unity or homogeneity.

A second minor point: the English-language works mentioned in the piece do not add much to the discussion. But this is largely related to my above point about the framing, as it seems more tied to the above-discussed framing device. 

That being said, the parts on the Laozi are very well-executed, s/he is clued in on the relevant Chinese-language literature and some of the key traditional commentators. More importantly, it provides a reading of the work that is not out of touch with how the text was read in culturally-relevant contexts. And on these important merits, despite my comparatively minor reservations, I think the piece is publishable as it is.

It needs some proofreading. And also some copy-editing: for instance, it cites "Nylan" (p. 2) without including a citation in the bibliography.

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for their helpful comments.
In regard to the first comment about the problematic use of “the West” as homogenizing cultures and countries that are in fact diverse and distinct, I have decided to make only minor changes. While I am sympathetic with the reviewer’s concerns about the often overly generalized use the “the West” or claims about “Western philosophy,” in the context of this paper each time I have referred to the “Western tradition” it has been in reference specifically to the Western tradition of philosophic critique. The tradition of philosophical critique has a clearer line of influence and inheritance, from Kant, Hegel, and Nietzsche to Foucault, Rorty, and Butler, than does the impossibly broad “Western philosophy.” Indeed, this line of influence is very often explicitly recognized in primary literature by the thinkers who use philosophic critique as well as in secondary literature about these thinkers or philosophic critique in general. I have added bits to try to make this more clear, however, as I also find the "West" in comparison to "China" (or the "Other" more broadly) sometimes infuriating. Furthermore, I specified it was the “Western” tradition of critique to distinguish it from the Lao-Zhuang tradition in order to make space for discussing lao-Zhuang methods of philosophical critique as distinct from those instigated by Kant's use, to give them their own philosophically critical voice rather than project methods used by Nietzsche, Derrida, etc.

The reviewers second comment is helpful, and points to what might stem from attempting to do too much, thereby making the article more confusing than it needs to. I have attempted to make the use of English language literature approaches to Laozhuang thought more clearly oriented around juxtaposing how philosophic critique is (or isn't) articulated in English language and Chinese language literature, recognizing the gap between the two in the service of attempting to establishing a discursive bridge so that the two might be put in dialogue.
I sincerely thank the reviewers helpful comments.