An Apology for a Dynamic Ontology: Peirce’s Analysis of Futurity in a Nietzschean Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The essay seeks to situate Peircean pragmatism in a Nietzschean perspective.  In particular, it seeks to connect Peirce's pragmatic theory of meaning with the Nietzschean doctrine of the Eternal Return of the Same. Both would be expressions of a non-standard ontology of becoming, according to which the past is constantly redefining itself from the future. The primacy of the future in Peirce derives from the character of "imminence" assigned to the "living present," whose truth, always revisable, resides in a shared interpretation by the community. The analysis is relevant and well-founded especially with regard to Peirce, while it appears weaker and less argued with regard to Nietzsche's philosophy.

Author Response

Dear madam/sir,

Thank you for your notes that helped me to better clarify my intentions. I  revised the introduction and the conclusion explaining more clearly what the objective of my work is: not an historical-philological comparison between Nietzsche's interpretation  of history and time and Peirce’s one – an undertaking that would involve writing an entire book – but simply the opening of a possible interpretation of Peirce's work starting from some Nietzschean insights.

I hope the revision can satisfy you.

My best

Reviewer 2 Report

The theoretical intent of the text relates Peirce's unlimited interpretation and Nietzsche's eternal return. The development of this theme, which is original and profound, benefits from extensive knowledge of the authors' works and related secondary bibliography. The text is clear, effective and persuasive. The outcome outlines the idea of a dynamic and pragmatic ontology, functional to the ethical construction of the subject. In it, truth and reality decline into the future. The contribution is of relevant philosophical importance.

Author Response

Dear madam/sir,

Thank you for your notes that helped me to better clarify my intentions. I  revised the introduction and the conclusion explaining more clearly what the objective of my work is: not an historical-philological comparison between Nietzsche's interpretation  of history and time and Peirce’s one – an undertaking that would involve writing an entire book – but simply the opening of a possible interpretation of Peirce's work starting from some Nietzschean insights.

I hope the revision can satisfy you.

My best

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper aims to explore Peirce's "futurist" interpretation of reality "in a nietzschean perspective." This is an interesting issue, given that a comparison between Peirce and Nietzsche is scarcely provided. Unfortunately, while the "Peircean" part of the paper is developed adequately (it is clearly written and well argued), further work is required for what concerns Nietzsche.

The "Nietzschean insights" that, as stated at p. 2, should allow the author "to reframe the American philosopher's interpretation from a markedly anti-metaphysical perspective" deserve a more in-depth study. Otherwise, the context of the proposed research is doomed to remain too weak and vague to constitute an adequate frame of reference for the main issue of the paper, and it would not be possible to appreciate the parallel or mutual reinforcement between Nietzsche and Peirce that the author aims to provide.

For example: the question of the "historical sense" and of the "historical philosophizing" in Human, all too Human, and its relationship with Nietzsche's view of metaphysics, should be explored more in details. What is Nietzsche talking about, when he refers to "metaphysics" in the 1878 book? Is that notion relatable to "ontology", in general? Is it relatable or comparable to Peirce's view of these issues? Personally, I have some doubts about that; but I am very much interested in learning how it can be argued that there is in fact some consistency between the two authors, on this particular topic.

Also, the referenced literature on Nietzsche is inadequate. In fact, it is almost non-existent. This negligence cannot be justified based on the absence of relevant writings on Nietzsche's view of metaphysics; ontology; history; truth; perspectivism; reality; even eternal recurrence. These are classic topics of the Nietzsche studies, and there are plenty of papers and books on them. The author should select just a few of them, in order to strengthen their argument and provide a more consistent ground for their remarks.

One more thing: it seems to me that the paper could be introduced in a better. The very first paragraph ("Ontology... subject?", p. 1) may fit better in the conclusions. Otherwise, one should explain why the questions there expressed are philosophically relevant at all. That is, why should be (actually, it is) interesting to ask ourselves if "it is possible to consider being and reality not in a traditional metaphysical way etc.?"?. 

Author Response

Dear madam/sir,

Thank you for your notes that helped me to better clarify my intentions. I  revised the introduction and the conclusion explaining more clearly what the objective of my work is: not an historical-philological comparison between Nietzsche's interpretation  of history and time and Peirce’s one – an undertaking that would involve writing an entire book – but simply the opening of a possible interpretation of Peirce's work starting from some Nietzschean insights.

I thank you above all for noting that the first words of the essay, accompanied by some precise questions, are not reflected in the conclusions. At the end I then tried to answer, expanding  my argument and, with regard to the eternal recurrence, I added my main  bibliographical references.

I hope the revision can satisfy you.

My best

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreaciate the efforts of the Author in revising the paper. However, my previous remarks did not point towards the necessity of providing a "historical-philological comparison" of Nietzsche and Peirce. What I remarked - and I still think there is space for improvement on this - is that the Nietzschean framework that the Author aims to use as a reference for highlighting some issues of Peircean work, is not adequately outlined.

Albeit my report on the revised version is not quite positive, I think that the paper can be published anyway.

Just a couple of things: 

1. There is a phrase in Italian at the beginning of the text;

2. English should be polished, if possible. 

Author Response

Thanks again for your notes and willingness to publish in this form my article. Indeed, the part concerning Nietzsche could be declined more broadly (although I remain of the opinion that the structure of the article would in that case be entirely reviewed, changing the goal I had set myself). However, I am unfortunately in the middle of the spring semester and struggling with many other projects. At this moment I am afraid I cannot engage myself in such an effort.

As far as English is concerned, I relied on a native speaker, whom my Department addresses for almost all English translation work. Honestly, it is the first time that his work is considered insufficient. But I'll let him see it again.

Thank you for reporting about the sentence in Italian. I translated it and it remains highlighted in the file.