The Possibility of Asking about Dao: On the Philosophical Significance of Dialogue in the Zhuangzi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an outstanding piece of work!  The author knows the texts very well....is current in his/her/their scholarship, raises interesting intertextual questions and writes clearly and succinctly.  The subject is important and parallels well current scholarship on the place of Dao and what it means to be One with Dao in wu-wei and the relationship of these themes to contemplative skillfulness in Daoism.

The author's composition is not free of all differences between how readers would say something, but none of these rise to the level of serious interpretive divergences or questionable constructions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for reviewing and appreciating this paper!

Reviewer 2 Report

 

 

I find the topic(s) discussed by the Author of paramount importance, I basically agree with its direction and conclusions, and I think that _this draft, once modified, will give way to a very good article. 

However, there are serious shortcomings that need to be taken care of before publication.

The article discusses various questions at the same time; it neither articulate nor hierarchize them clearly. As far as I understood the nature of the investigation, the author asks questions about (a) the epistemological stance taken by the Zhuangzi as to the possibility of knowledge statements about Dao; (b) the similarities and differences between these statements and those found in the Laozi; (c) rhetorical features (notably use of dialogues) in the Zhuangzi that have to do with the epistemology being developed.

The Abstract and to a lesser degree the Introduction do not articulate and distinguish these questions clearly. The Abstract is confusing. Still, these questions emerge as the reading progresses.

The structure of the article needs to be specified and clarified. Subtitles need to be introduced below the Parts. The logic of the division between the parts is not clear; one does not see how the thought progresses form one part to another. The conclusion is too short.

Though the grammar is generally correct there are problems with the English. There are surprising expressions (for instance ‘the tricks of the Dao” - I find the discussion in lines 134-148 unclear, and am not at ease with the translation of ‘mingshu”) and very elliptical ways of introducing the argument: “the change in literary styles to thoughts” (41);  “what he is denying is the way that tries to use forms and names (including determinations and rules) belonging to things first to understand Dao’ (180-1 – meaning reasonably clear, expression awkward; etc.) In fact, working on a simpler and clearer Abstract and Introduction (clarifying both structure and expression) would help a lot The Part on dialogue is promising when introduced, but eventually disappointing. One does not see exactly in which ways the use of dialogue helps the Zhuangzi to overcome the epistemological difficulties induced by its approach of Dao. I think the thesis developed by the author is right, but it remains unsubstantiated. The Author may want to read more on the relationship between literary patterns and epistemological content. A starting point would be to see whether Harbsmeier article of 1956 on “The Conversational Tradition in Chinese Philosophy” triggers specific insights on the Zhuangzi. The numerous articles on specific dialogues, such as the one between Huizi and Zhuangzi on the bridge of the Hao River (Moeller etc) have also interesting insights as to the function played by dialogue in the building of knowledge statements.

Finally, the Author avoids to engage with the debates as to the composition and consistency of the Zhuangzi taken as a whole. This is acceptable, but it weakens the conclusions insofar as they are supposed to be valid for the whole of the text. Most of the quotations come from chapters 21 and, especially, 22. I wonder whether it would not be better to explicitly concentrate on these two chapters and to locate them in the history of the text.

Grammar is clear. Some expressions after surprising or far too elliptical. A certain amount of stylistic rewording is needed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for reviewing this paper. I have revised the thesis in accordance with the comments you have provided, and the specific changes have been explained as follows:

1. In the revised version, the paper has been rewritten with an abstract, an introduction, and a conclusion. In contrast to the previous approach, which dealt with different topics in a fragmented manner, this rewrite focuses on the relationship between Zhuangzi's different attitudes towards dialogues of Dao and his conscious differentiation of levels of knowledge. put it specifically, certain dialogues are partly dismissed because both participants demonstrate a flawed and shallow understanding of the Dao, while other questions and answers are acknowledged and appreciated for their correct and profound understanding of Dao. Therefore, the examination of the dialogues about the Dao reveals that Zhuangzi places explicit emphasis on the knowledge of the Dao compared to the Daodejing, which also sheds light on Zhuangzi's distinctive awareness of the problems surrounding the concept of the Dao.
2. The argument in lines 134-148 has been reconstructed to make it more understandable, please see lines 287-311 in the revised version.
3. Some “surprising expressions” translated by Watson（for example, “the tricks to the Dao”）and awkward statements made by me has been refined.
4. the reason why the Zhuangzi can be treated as a whole is further explained by citing Yang Guorong’s research. In addition, this paper does quote extensively from Chapter 22 of the Zhuangzi, because this chapter centrally presents a great deal of dialogues about “asking about Dao”. However dialogues about this theme in Chapters 6, 11, 13,14,25 and 32 are  not neglected, they are used to show Zhuangzi’s attitudes of dialogues of Dao and its distinct epistemological concern of Dao. I make an explanation in footnote 9.
5. Some confusing titles are refined, and subtitles have been introduced to make the logic of the division more clear.
6. I'm not very sure that the article you refer to was written by Harbsmeier in 1956, as I can only find the article “he Conversational Tradition in Chinese Philosophy”written by Holzman in 1956. Holzman‘s paper has been discussed in this paper. The three features of "Chinese philosophical conversations concluded by him is illuminating, but dialogues of Dao in Zhuangzi is not in agreement with the third feature that “they [Chinese conversation] are conversations in the most ordinary sense of word, short episodes taken from life”, because these dialogues primarily revolve around the most abstract concepts in Chinese philosophy. 

Thank you very much for reviewing this paper. I have revised the thesis in accordance with the comments you have provided, and the specific changes have been explained as follows:

1. In the revised version, the paper has been rewritten with an abstract, an introduction, and a conclusion. In contrast to the previous approach, which dealt with different topics in a fragmented manner, this rewrite focuses on the relationship between Zhuangzi's different attitudes towards dialogues of Dao and his conscious differentiation of levels of knowledge. put it specifically, certain dialogues are partly dismissed because both participants demonstrate a flawed and shallow understanding of the Dao, while other questions and answers are acknowledged and appreciated for their correct and profound understanding of Dao. Therefore, the examination of the dialogues about the Dao reveals that Zhuangzi places explicit emphasis on the knowledge of the Dao compared to the Daodejing, which also sheds light on Zhuangzi's distinctive awareness of the problems surrounding the concept of the Dao.
2. Some confusing titles are refined, and subtitles have been introduced to make the logic of the division more clear.
3. This paper does quote extensively from Chapter 22 of the Zhuangzi, because this chapter centrally presents a great deal of dialogues about “asking about Dao”. However dialogues about this theme in Chapters 6, 11, 13,14,25 and 32 are  not neglected, they are used to show Zhuangzi’s attitudes of dialogues of Dao and its distinct epistemological concern of Dao. I make an explanation in footnote 9.
4. The use of multiple references to Zhuangzi and the questions you mentioned has been explained in footnote 1.
5. the problem of blank references has been solved to some extent.

Finally, thank you for your careful review and reliable comments, I have learned a lot from them

Reviewer 3 Report

This article offered an interesting connection between the Tao te Ching and Zhuangzi in terms of the three themes.

 

However, the author apparently attempts to understand Zhuang Zi from Western sense of ontology (Line #177, 187, 206, 208, 242, 423, etc.). However, this is deeply problematic methodologically. It has been widely recognized by the Chinese philosphers that in constrast to Western philosophers who unconsciously always think that there is a correspondence between concepts in philosophical thought and ontological being, Chinese philosophy does not render an “ontological” understanding of most fundamental concepts such as Dao and De.

 

Second, the Conclusion includes a reference to the “ojectively scientific knowledge,” which only appears once in the main text (Line #516). Such a reference is out of the context and does not contribute to the argumentation.

N/A

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for reviewing this paper. I have revised the thesis in accordance with the comments you have provided, and the specific changes have been explained as follows:

1. I have already explained  that the word ontology is used in the sense of a doctrine of the ground of all things, which s consistent with its main meaning in 17^th century. In this sense, there are many discourses or propositions in Zhuangzi belong to the scope of ontological discourses. Please see footnote 16 in the revised paper.
2. In my rewrite of the conclusion, the problem you mention has been corrected.

3. some awkward expressions in this paper has been refined to some extent.

Finally, thank you very much for your advice, from which I have learned a lot.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Expression is much clearer than before, and the conclusion is rate3hr convincing.

Before publication, there are still some problems to be fixed with the English. For instance:"

"In addition, the role of Dao as ontological ground of is also positively articulated in chapter 22". (180) Problem with syntax

"a kind of praised dialogu"e （349, 441）I still do not understand the expression "praised dialogue' and I do not think it is felicitous

"To sum up, although Zhuangzi seems to deny the possibility dialogues of Dao in chapter 22 with the claim" (540) Issue iwht syntax. at least an "of" lacking though this does nto solve everything

Several similar issues. careful rereading needed.

Much improved but still a number of issues. asl first careful rereading by authors. There will be additional issues to tackle afterwards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

Thanks for your careful review of this paper. I have revised this manuscript in terms of your comments, and the specific changes and particular explanations have been explained as follows:

 

1. Some syntax errors(including errors you mentioned) have been corrected.
2. The expression “the praised dialogue” is derived from Master Guang Cheng’s praise to the Yellow Emperor’s new question that "excellent, this question of yours”. Subsequently, Master Guang Cheng also gave a corresponding positive answer. In my opinion, this case reflects a praised question and a direct and positive answer to it, which can be summarized as  “the praised dialogue”.  Therefore, I tend to retain this expression.

 

Finally, thanks for your careful and patient review again!

Reviewer 3 Report

The revisions resolved my major concerns.

Still need minor adjustments to fix grammatical errors such as “deny the possibility dialogues” (Line 540).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

Thanks for your careful review of this paper. I have corrected some syntax errors in this manuscript after my rereading.

Finally, thank you for your careful and patient review again!