Beyond Empathy; Love. Person and Otherness in the Thought of Edith Stein

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Edith Stein is presented in the broader context of studies on empathy, which - according to Zahavi - are considered within two main models: the first deals with empathy as an intellectual inference and the second as a way of simulating the experience of the other in our mind. However, Stein’s phenomenological conception, as developed in her doctoral dissertation Zum Problem der Einfühlung (1916), sees empathy as an act sui generis in which a subject experiences another subject’s experience not as its own, but precisely as the other’s experience. This means that our knowledge of other subjects is not only based on theoretical acts of sensation and intelligence, but that we know others through feelings, or more precisely, through in-feeling, i.e. empathy. According to the author, this empathy as intuitive knowledge of otherness is a condition of possibility for the process of becoming a person who lives in a common world with others.

However, already in Freiheit und Gnade (1921), Stein does not pursue the question of empathy any further, but shows more interest in a new question that would become increasingly present in her later writings, namely self-surrender (Selbsthingabe). Self-surrender is explored as a major theme in Endliches und ewiges Sein (1935-36), especially in chapter 7, where the Trinity is seen as the prototype of a self-surrendering love in which persons do not lose themselves. This research leads the author to his hypothesis that, for Stein, empathy is not enough to describe the essence of intersubjective relationships, but must enter the realm of love understood as self-giving. For this reason, empathy can be declared a “prolegomenon” of love.

 

Comments:

1. Even if it is true that Stein did not continue her research on empathy extensively after her doctoral thesis, the author should at least provide a reference to Stein’s study of the knowledge of other subjects in her Einführung in die Philosophie (ESGA 8). This work has not yet been translated into English and is therefore much less present in the English secondary literature. However, the extensive section on knowledge of persons (ESGA 8, 149-199) includes a treatment of empathy (ESGA 8, 157-175), in particular with an openness to the possibility of purely spiritual empathy without bodily mediation.

2. In the context of Stein’s interest in love, the author mentions mystical graces. From a vocabulary point of view, it would be interesting to insist a little more on the similarities between the vocabulary of empathy (Einfühlung) and the vocabulary used to describe mystical graces (fühlen). Since the “ein” in “einfühlen” refers to another subject outside of myself, Stein might have preferred to say more simply that it is possible to feel God’s presence in us. In any case, the cognitive aspect - not just the loving aspect - is present in her account of mystical graces.

3. The author insists on the idea that we become persons through otherness (given to me in acts of empathy). It may be helpful to make clear that, for Stein, becoming a person necessarily presupposes already being a person (following the idea of becoming what you are). Stein’s insistence on the “nucleus of the person” and its unfolding, both mentioned by the author, is a way of articulating what it means to be and to become a person.

4. The final hypothesis of empathy as a prolegomenon does not, in my view, completely do justice to Stein’s work, because it is not possible to think of an intersubjective relationship without empathy. From this point of view, empathy is omnipresent, and therefore it is neither necessary nor possible to mention empathy whenever it is experienced. In my opinion, Stein sees the relationship between empathic knowledge and self-surrendering love more in the perspective of mutual integration than in the perspective of a prolegomenon. Some passages suggest that Stein, in her research, moves from knowledge to love.

5. Some corrections have been inserted directly into the pdf.

 

 

Author Response

Response to Review Report 1:

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your attentive reading and constructive comments to my article.

I hereunder account for how I have tried to integrate your proposals. All changes and additions are marked in blue in the manuscript, but then there are also long passages that are (invisibly) deleted ...

Comment 1. Thank you for this helpful reminder of Einführung. I have added this in a footnote.

Comment 2. I perfectly agree that “the cognitive aspect - not just the loving aspect - is present in her account of mystical graces”, I have tried to expand on this as a main point in her conception of love.

Comment 3. As to “the nucleus of the person” and the “unfolding of the person”, I initially tried to indicate “what it means to be and to become a person“ on page 5-6 and 8, and I have now slightly reformulated to make it clearer.

Comment 4. I agree that “it is not possible to think of an intersubjective relationship without empathy”. If “prolegomenon” is read to imply leaving empathy behind in favour of love, this of course would not do justice to Stein’s thought. So maybe the expression is not a good one. Still, I have kept it, since “prolegomenon” indicates a certain chronology in the exploration of relationship. I have tried to explicate its implications further and elaborated on the whole questioning.

Also, I do not think Stein moves “from knowledge to love”; love in itself embracing the whole of the human being in Stein’s thinking; thought, volition and feeling. I have tried to stress this further.

In sum, section 4. “The Life-Giving Love of All Things" has been re-written / re-orgsnised, aiming to give it a clearer argumentative structure. Also, section 5. “Concluding remarks” has been somewhat expanded in this regard.

Comment 5.  As to the “corrections [...] inserted directly into the pdf” (a rather unusual procedure), they are not marked in the version of the article sent by the editor for revision, therefor I have not been able neither to detect them nor to consider and decide whether I agree to them.

yours truly,

Author

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is interesting. On a formal level, the structure is well-conceived and well-written. It reads fluidly. The writer demonstrates knowledge of Edith Stein's thought, which makes the article more interesting, as it shows mastery of her ideas. The hypothesis is interesting and current; however, the conclusion is somewhat weaker and less clear on an argumentative level.

Regarding the content, on a general level, I suggest complementing what is established as Stein's proposal with other authors. For example, on p. 9, it says: "When we seek God, faith leads us to the very depths of ourselves where the experience of divine love calls forth a loving response". In addition to the Carmelite inspiration, there's Augustine and Dionysius. This is not exclusive to Stein. The author surely knows this, but it's important to make it explicit. 

In detail, the following issues need to be addressed:

P. 3: Can we talk about "where" the experience resides? Explain more clearly in what sense this is said.

P. 3: Make more use of the expression "guided" regarding lived experience. It's very interesting. This reappears on P. 4: "where I am affected, touched, and guided by [...]". I suggest delving deeper into it. It's worth it.

P. 4: When it says "feelings are linked to how I evaluate the outside world", the type of link between feeling and the external world can be briefly explained.

P. 5: When it says "the other and the world are inextricably linked", it's not clearly presented that it's the dimension of the spirit that allows this step to be taken (and the link to be generated).

P. 6: The expression "Stein suggests, the person has no definite substance or content – the person is empty, basically defined by her capacity to receive". Speaking of emptiness is ambiguous. Perhaps I didn't understand the meaning of the sentence (or it's a translation problem), but I think there's a misunderstanding there. The same happens when it says "This existential indeterminacy of the human subject...". For Stein, freedom is not in indeterminacy, but in the capacity to move through the spirit and intentionality that is activated by the will of an act that is rational and volitional... Integral.

P. 7: Review the wording of the sentence "I shall here concentrate on the for our purpose important chapter VII of this book". The expression could be clearer.

P. 7-10: In the section "4. The Life-Giving Love of All Things", the argumentative proposal needs clarification. The force of love as a proposal that goes beyond empathy is diluted among reflections on the Trinity, Christ, and community. These are all very important elements, but what is meant to be highlighted in this process presented at the beginning of the article gets lost.

By reviewing and improving these aspects, the article will be a good contribution to the study of Edith Stein's thought.

Author Response

Response to Review Report 2:

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your attentive reading and constructive comments to my article.

I hereunder account for how I have integrated your proposals. Some, considered perhaps less crucial although always pertinent, have not been possible to elaborate on due to lack of space and time. All changes and additions are marked in blue in the manuscript, but then there are also long passages that are (invisibly) deleted ...

As to “complementing what is established as Stein's proposal with other authors”, I already mentioned the inspiration from the broader catholic tradition at the beginning of section 4 (p.7), naming both Augustin, Dionysius and Thomas. To make it even more clear, I have now added a sentence and a citation (p.8).

The sentence on p. 7 has been reformulated.

As to the question of emptiness, existential indeterminacy and freedom, I have slightly reformulated the section in question (p. 6), but I think I actually have sufficiently elaborated the notion of freedom here and elsewhere.

Section 4. “The Life-Giving Love of All Things" has been re-written / re-organised, aiming to give it a clearer argumentative structure. Also, section 5. “Concluding remarks” has been somewhat expanded in this regard.

yours truly,

Author