The Threefold Nature of Desire and Its Implications for Ethics and Theology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is a good one. It explores the dynamics of desire, tracing its development from Plato to the phenomenological tradition, with particular attention to von Hildebrand. The most original contribution appears only towards the end, in section 7, with respect to the theological consequences the author draws from the distinction between different types of desire and from the claim that desire is not simply the objective lack of something. It is in this sense that the author interprets “the desire for a deeper union with a loved one as a desire for perfection” (lines 413–414). In my understanding, this article is worth publishing.

However, the author needs to improve some aspects:

1 - The introduction and abstract would greatly benefit from revision. They should state much more explicitly, from the very beginning, what the original point of the article is—namely, the contribution developed in section 7. As they stand, both the abstract and introduction give the impression that the article is merely a summary of existing positions, with nothing original to add.

2 - The style of the introduction requires adjustment. At present, it reads more like an abstract, describing the article from the outside with expressions such as “the study analyzes...”. It would be preferable to go straight to the central point and frame the argument in a more direct way.

3 - On a substantive note, when discussing the intentionality of the body as surpassing the intentionality of a transcendental consciousness in Husserl, the author should also refer to Merleau-Ponty. His work deepens precisely this dimension of bodily intentionality. In phenomenology, one cannot speak of the intentionality of the body without at least mentioning Merleau-Ponty, even if only in a footnote.

4 - Finally, there are some minor errors to correct:

Line 7: Symposium should be in italics.

Line 55: steresis should be in italics.

Line 105: replace the dash with either a comma or a big dash

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions!

I have rewritten both the Abstract and the Intro according to your suggesstions 1 a 2.

I have added a note (nr. 3) to adress suggestion regarding Merleau-Ponty.

You can see the result in the new version of the paper I upload. Changes are marked with red colour.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall I would be eager to see this paper published, as it offers an admirably clear and compelling argument in favor of an important thesis. So I submit my comments (see attached PDF) as optional suggestions for the most part. The two things I do think demand something approaching serious consideration are as follows (details are in the PDF document): 

1. The historical point about the self-diffusiveness of the good and its implications (or lack thereof) for the author's thesis about the traditional notion of goodness; and 
2. The systematic point about perfection and its relation to the capacity/ability to engage in value responses. 

If the author can credibly address these questions, I think the argument would be quite a bit stronger. Regardless, though, I would be happy to see the paper published in the pages of Religions, i.e., even if the author doesn't share my abovementioned concerns about the thesis. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I have considered all 12 of your comments. I have decided to address the two that you considered the most important and which you mentioned explicitly in your review. The comment regarding bonum diffusivum sui was by far the most challenging for me. I will need to reconsider the issue in my future work.

Below are the two modifications to my paper resulting from your two comments:

1) The historical point about the self-diffusiveness of the good and its implications (or lack thereof) for the author's thesis about the traditional notion of goodness:

               I have added note 13 to address your comment related to the bonum diffusivum sui principle.

2) The systematic point about perfection and its relation to the capacity/ability to engage in value responses.

               I have reformulated the sentence "Firstly, they are perfective because their existence demonstrates the subject’s ability to produce value-responses, which could be considered a perfective quality in itself." in this way: "Firstly, they are perfective because they are entailed in value-responses, which could themselves be considered perfective with respect to the conscious subject capable of performing them."