The Medieval Problem of the Productivity of Art

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article, “The Medieval Problem of the Productivity of Art” is concerned about an ontological problem, asking whether the artificer produces a new thing in the world or not. The author divides the article into five parts. (1) An introduction. (2) A part dedicated to the Realist arguments supporting a positive answer. (3) A part dedicated to the Nominalist account for a negative answer (the author devotes the greatest space to this part). (4) A part showing an extension of the problem of the productivity of art in other area of philosophy such as the possibility or impossibility of natural change and generation. Here the Realist charge the Nominalist of reductionism since he cannot explain natural change in terms of only local motion.  Finally, the conclusion, where the author shows his doubts about the nominalist success in solving the problem and wonder how could be his way out.  This could be a theme for further research.

The article contains many references to the disputed authors and offers the relevant texts in Latin, some of them are manuscripts.  There could be some lose ends, f.i. the realist's rejection of the Secundumquid and SImpliciter distinction is not well explained. Although the author is not obliged to, the use of logical tools could be helpful to better understanding of the arguments and dilemmas proposed by the contenders, especially First Order Logic and Dynamic Logic. 

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. Re the distinction between production simpliciter and secundum quid, I have now expanded my parenthetical note somewhat; I have also added explanation that the main reasons why the realists reject this distinction lie in the arguments motivating their general position on the productivity of art, which I cover in Section 2.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents the medieval debate between proponents of artefacts’ realism and proponents of artefacts’ nominalism. It does so with clarity, good level of engagement with primary sources, and an helpful structure. I would like to suggest a few points that can be improved:

1. The claim of the paper seems to be what the author states in lines 32-34: "My own view is that the debate between these two camps is best seen as a cluster of more specific problems and arguments that recur in the texts addressing this main issue, principally commentaries on Aristotle’s Physics.” However, I fail to see how this claim is argued for throughout the text. It might be helpful to remind the reader along the way of how the discussion supports that initial claim, which should also be recalled in the conclusions (perhaps in the abstract too?). My suggestion is to sharpen this claim.  

2. One thing that comes to mind already by reading the introduction is the fact that, at least in Aristotle, technê is obviously a cross-categorical enterprise: it produces objects, such as a statue, that might or might not have a claim to be “new things in the world” as well as qualities, like the health restored by a doctor, or processes, like the boiling of water. One wonders what happens to this preposition in the medieval debate. 

3. Concerning the realist arguments, it seems important to tell the reader whether the realists would still make room for some conventional beings as different from artefacts. 

4. This relates to my first point: how are the various solutions related to NE on the productivity of art? They seem to spring from those lines, but they certainly cannot be deducted in their entirety from these lines alone. For instance, the realist view seems right if one refers only to the Nicomachean Ethics. In other words, the debate seems to highly depend on how much of an authority — and the sole authority — these lines are. I recommend clarifying this issue.

5. The discussion of the nominalist account is very interesting, especially the reduction of all kinds of artificial making to mere local motion. I wonder what role intention is playing. It seems that whether a seat is made intentionally or inadvertently would not make any difference, just like whether I put a lot of effort in shaping the material to make just the perfect paperweight or I just take a small rock and put it on my pile of sheets. To be sure, this is not a central issue, but maybe one could have a quick note on it.  

6. Line 362: consists instead of consist?

7. Regarding lines 445-449, one might say that you can still be happy to pay for a “breakfast” even if you think that you just call it that way but for you it really is just yogurt and müsli. 

8. Lines 590-591 seem very relevant. This reader, for instance, wondered all the way why they would not just drop the productivity of art. This point needs further elaboration. Elsewhere Aristotle leans more towards the nominalist view, but just not in the NE. It would have been much easier for a nominalist to just say “here Aristotle states X, but somewhere else Y” and then work out a solution in their interest. Why not? It seems so self-sabotaging to just stick to 2 lines found in a non-metaphysical text and go into deep trouble for this.

9. As last point, I would ask the author to clarify whether the secondary sources hold a widely shared interpretation of these authors. I am not suggesting to go into the details of modern scholarship, but just to mention whether the author starts from an agreed upon interpretation. 

Thanks!

Author Response

Ad 1: The claim that I was trying to make in lines 32-34 was rather that my paper would only pick up on one of the many different questions constituting the medieval debate about the ontology of artefacts. So what I'm effectively saying (hopefully somewhat more clearly in the revised version) from that cluster of problems, I'm only focusing on one, namely: the problem of productivity of art, while setting all others aside.

Ad 2: I've now added a further explanation (and further reference to secondary sources) in Note 2.

Ad 3: I'm not entirely sure what the referee means here by 'conventional beings'.

Ad 4: See my new remarks ca. line 100, where I now explain that "for the realists, the Aristotelian adage simply expresses an intuitively compelling premise, one which can of course also be reached by different, less authority-based routes". I hope that this will make clear(er) that the Aristotelian passage actually carries much less weight for the argument than it could initially seem to do.

Ad 5: See my addition to Note 3.

Ad 6: Right! Thanks for spotting this.

Ad 7: Agreed. 

Ad 8: Apart from Aristotle, the main motivation for the nominalists to retain productivity of art seems to be see their recognition that many people are indeed intuitively committed to the productivity of art, and so to reject it would go against their intuitions; which is something the nominalists are unwilling to do. I tried to make this clearer in the new draft, hence the additions, e.g., ca. 608.

Ad 9: I reply to the referee's query in Note 1.