Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for this valuable feedback. The revised version of my paper addresses your suggestions as follows:

• Minor corrections: in 2, l. 60-61there is an abrupt line break. The same is the case in p. 3, l. 115; p. 4, l. 165: p. 5, l. 221.

I have removed all abrupt line breaks.

• In 5, l. 225-226 (whether or not the Philebus contains a unified and coherent of pleasure) the word theory is obviously missing.

I have added the word “theory,” p. 7, line 197

• In 5, l. 242, χαίρειν instead of καίρειν

I have swapped χαίρειν for αίρειν, highlighted on p. 8, line 212.

• In 11, l. 542-543: The less adulterated with pain a pleasure is, the pleasanter it is. Better: The less adulterated with pain a pleasure is, the more pleasurable it is.

I have replaced “pleasanter” with “more pleasurable,” highlighted on p. 16, line 460.

• In 13, l. 626: his Hedonist position. Better: his hedonistic position.

I have replaced “Hedonist position” with “hedonistic position,” highlighted on p. 19, line 526.

• In p. 15, l. 738: γελοῖός τις ἄνθρωπος

I have corrected the phrase to “γελοῖός τις ἄνθρωπος,” highlighted on p. 21, line 614.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Over all, I found this paper very interesting, well-argued and well-researched. I had a couple comments and found a few small typographical issues, both in Greek and in English. If these can be addressed, I believe that this is worth publishing in Humanities.

 

Comments

l.60-4. The author makes an interesting point that the self-ignorant and powerful person  cannot be a source of laughter. This seems very different what happens in Old Comedy, when it is precisely the powerful who tend to get Aristophanes’ mockery. And even today, mockery of the powerful is surely a source of laughter, even if it is bad laughter (as the author argues later in the paper, 564-5): indeed, arguably laughing at the self-ignorant powerful person who is doing us harm is the only defence against them we have, however imperfect, morally or practically, it may be. So, I wonder if the author could comment on or clarify their position on that? Indeed, laughing at self-ignorance plus powerlessness is surely a for of “punching down,” which, at least according to my students, is thoroughly  offensive and unethical. Again, more clarification here would be welcome.

 

564-5 “Benevolent laughter lacks this infective quality. It does not “go viral.” But could it? How would we even prove that it doesn’t? What about the multiple pictures of cats doing cute things that do the rounds on the internet?!

 

571-3 “Socrates may, for example, hope that the jurors who convicted him “get what they deserve” so that they will come to see the error of their harmful ways and improve themselves. This sort of desire, which springs from love, is not malice “ But how do we know that this hope truly springs from love or is it unthinkable that Socrates could have any uncharitable thoughts?

 

 

Minor issues

The formatting of this article was imperfect in places, with randomly spaced lines and an inconsistency in the way that the footnotes were formatted, occasionally in superscript, but mostly as regular numbers.

95 “on the Platonic picture”. “On” didn’t seem like the right preposition: in/according to?

242, 263, 836: καίρειν should be χαίρειν

503 τάζιν should be τάξιν

621φιλόνεικος. The author translates it as “lover of victory” but surely it means lover of strife/quarrels? L.624 refers to philonikia, which is correct in the Greek: is there intended to be a pun on the two words?

764 become [a] genuinely ridiculous figure

863 “he I not a superiority:” I should be “is.”

884 “See above endnote” What is this?

Author Response

Thank you for this valuable feedback. The revised version of my paper addresses your suggestions as follows:

• 60-4. The author makes an interesting point that the self-ignorant and powerful person cannot be a source of laughter. This seems very different what happens in Old Comedy, when it is precisely the powerful who tend to get Aristophanes' mockery. And even today, mockery of the powerful is surely a source of laughter, even if it is bad laughter (as the author argues later in the paper, 564-5): indeed, arguably laughing at the self-ignorant powerful person who is doing us harm is the only defense against them we have, however imperfect, morally or practically, it may be. So, I wonder if the author could comment on or clarify their position on that? Indeed, laughing at self-ignorance plus powerlessness is surely a form of “punching down,” which, at least according to my students, is thoroughly offensive and unethical. Again, more clarification here would be welcome.

I have added an explanation on lines 58 and lines 63-65. The claim is not that we cannot laugh at those who are powerful and self-ignorant. The claim is that we should not. We should fear them instead. This change is highlighted.

• 564-5 “Benevolent laughter lacks this infective quality. It does not “go viral.” But could it? How would we even prove that it doesn't? What about the multiple pictures of cats doing cute things that do the rounds on the internet?!

I removed the claim that benevolent laughter cannot go viral.

• 571-3 “Socrates may, for example, hope that the jurors who convicted him “get what they deserve” so that they will come to see the error of their harmful ways and improve themselves. This sort of desire, which springs from love, is not malice “ But how do we know that this hope truly springs from love or is it unthinkable that Socrates could have any uncharitable thoughts?

 

I removed the claim that Socrates' desire that the jurors who convicted him "get what they deserve" is motivated by love.

• The formatting of this article was imperfect in places, with randomly spaced lines and an inconsistency in the way that the footnotes were formatted, occasionally in superscript, but mostly as regular numbers.

 

I corrected the formatting, removing the randomly spaced lines and making the footnote numbering consistent.

• 95 “on the Platonic picture”. “On” didn't seem like the right preposition: in/according to?

I replaced “on the Platonic picture” with “according to the Platonic picture,” highlighted on lines 87 and 315.

• 242, 263, 836: should be χαίρειν

 

I corrected all incorrect instances to “χαίρειν” – lines 212, 229, 701

 

• 503 Should be “τάξιν”

I corrected and highlighted “τάξιν” at line 427.

• 621 φιλόνεικος. The author translates it as “lover of victory’ but surely it means lover of strife/quarrels? 624 refers to philonikia, which is correct in the Greek: is there intended to be a pun on the two words?

I corrected and highlighted this at line 523. The translation is now “lover of quarrels.” All relevant instances of “victory” have been replaced with “quarrel” (also highlighted).

• 764 become [a] genuinely ridiculous figure

I added an “a” before “genuinely ridiculous figure” at line 636.

• 884 “See above endnote” What is this?

 

I removed “see above endnote” in endnote 31, line 754.

 

Thanks again, and best wishes.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting piece of scholarship with a few flaws (formatting of the text in terms of citations and reference numbering style being among the less important flaws). It explores an interesting and understudied aspect not only of Platonic research or in the history of philosophy, but develops its core theme of humor in relation to art, discovery, insight and epistemology in ways simlar to Köstler and even C. S. Lewis (The Four Loves).

It has the potential to go beyond Köstler's relatively undeveloped and scattershot insights and the author would do well to engage with his or e.g. Polanyi's critical approaches to radically other forms of knowledge in future research.

All in all, the article is a bit eclectic in style, and comes off as slightly unfocused -- although I personally like this approach and find that it works well with the subject matter. The text could, however, be helped a little bit by strenghthening the framing so that the reader more easily can trace the line of reasoning throughout the article. Some of the arguments and lines of reasoning are also difficult to follow and stand in need of clarification. Certain positions and conclusions are also stated as matters of fact, while they are actually grounded in specific metaphysical, psychological or ethical principles -- these should come out more clearly.

Also, the conclusion is very terse and does not really bring us home in terms of the insights and findings that are detailed throughout the text -- this should be amended. The abstract is also quite short, and even though the paper is an exploratory one, it could be framed with a clearer research question or problem -- if only a reiteration of its findings after the fact.

Author Response

Thank you for this valuable feedback. The revised version of my paper addresses your suggestions as follows:

• Formatting of the text in terms of citations and reference numbering style being among the less important flaws

I have made all citation and reference numbering consistent.

• All in all, the article is a bit eclectic in style and comes off as slightly unfocused although I personally like this approach and find that it works well with the subject matter. The text could, however, be helped a little bit by strengthening the framing so that the reader more easily can trace the line of reasoning throughout the article. Some of the arguments and lines of reasoning are also difficult to follow and stand in need of clarification.

 

I reviewed the paper and did not see a framing issue. I believe the existing “roadmap” already addresses this concern. In particular, at the end of the first section I provide a detailed roadmap for the entire paper, and I stick to that roadmap throughout. At the end of each section I reference the roadmap and situate the reader. Neither the guest editor nor the other two referees mention a problem with the paper’s focus or framing. I believe the line of argument is clear, because I refer back to the roadmap throughout the paper.

• Certain positions and conclusions are also stated as matters of fact, while they are actually grounded in specific metaphysical, psychological or ethical principles -- these should come out more clearly.

 

I no longer claim that benevolent laughter cannot go viral. I also removed the claim that Socrates' desire that the jurors who convicted him "get what they deserve" is motivated by love. These unsupported claims were noted by another referee. I reviewed all claims, and I either support them directly are situate them within Platonic moral psychology. 

• … the conclusion is very terse and does not really bring us home in terms of the insights and findings that are detailed throughout the text -- this should be amended.

 

I have folded the conclusion into endnote 43, where it fits more naturally.

• The abstract is also quite short, and even though the paper is an exploratory one, it could be framed with a clearer research question or problem -- if only a reiteration of its findings after the fact.

 

I have augmented my abstract to show more clearly the projects of the paper. The new lines are highlighted.

 

Thanks again, and best wishes.