The Transcendental Status of Beauty: Evaluating the Debate among Neo-Thomistic Philosophers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your paper addresses an interesting and important topic. You also sketch a plausible defense of the thesis that beauty should be included among the transcendentals. My concern is that the defense of this thesis is much too brief.

You need to expand your section "A Proposal of Beauty as a Transcendental." Explain why the criteria of transcendental properties is appropriate and complete. Develop your reasons for thinking that beauty is convertible and coextensive with Being. Also develop your reasons for thinking that beauty is predicable of every being. In this section, also explain the distinction between the privation of beauty and the negation of beauty.

You also should rework your section "The History of Beauty's Status as a Transcendental." You may wish to change the title to "A Brief History of Beauty's Status as a Transcendental," since you merely sketch a variety of views from the ancient and early medieval periods. In this section, you must cite the original texts for all the philosophers and theologians you mention. For instance, cite the relevant passages from the Categories and not merely Studtmann's encyclopedia article. Also cite the relevant passages from Aristotle's Metaphysics when you refer to his consideration of unity. 

Throughout the paper, you rely heavily on Francis Kovach. At times it seems you overuse his expertise on this topic. Consider adding other sources and reducing your reliance on Kovach.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are several places where some minor revisions are necessary.

At line 38, add "and" between "ancient, [sic] medieval times".

At lines 64 and 65, add or delete commas where applicable. E.g., "... St. Augustine, [sic] and Pseudo-Dionysius, who... medieval philosophers, such as Boethius, did..." You need similar additions of commas at lines 84-85, 97-98, 228.

At line 226, delete "does" At line 229, delete "is". At line 254, I think you need to add "the" before "finite".

At line 312, I think "own" should be "one".

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the careful evaluation and critique. I appreciate the challenges you brought to the article.

Point 1: Your paper addresses an interesting and important topic. You also sketch a plausible defense of the thesis that beauty should be included among the transcendentals. My concern is that the defense of this thesis is much too brief.

 Response 1: Thank you for this concern. I added length (by approx.125 lines) to the defense.

Point 2: You need to expand your section "A Proposal of Beauty as a Transcendental." Explain why the criteria of transcendental properties is appropriate and complete. Develop your reasons for thinking that beauty is convertible and coextensive with Being. Also develop your reasons for thinking that beauty is predicable of every being. In this section, also explain the distinction between the privation of beauty and the negation of beauty.

Response 2: I expanded this section to explain why the criteria of transcendental properties is appropriate and complete according to Aquinas himself. In this section on Aquinas, I expounded on why beauty is converted and coexenstive with Being, as well as predicable of every being. In this section, I explained the distinction between the privation of beauty and the negation of beauty.

Point 3: You also should rework your section "The History of Beauty's Status as a Transcendental." You may wish to change the title to "A Brief History of Beauty's Status as a Transcendental," since you merely sketch a variety of views from the ancient and early medieval periods. In this section, you must cite the original texts for all the philosophers and theologians you mention. For instance, cite the relevant passages from the Categories and not merely Studtmann's encyclopedia article. Also cite the relevant passages from Aristotle's Metaphysics when you refer to his consideration of unity. 

Response 3: I changed the title of the section. I also ensured all the original texts are cited in the body of the paper or within the footnotes. I deleted the encyclopedia article, but cited the relevant passages in Aristotle’s Metaphysics in the body of the paper.

Point 4: Throughout the paper, you rely heavily on Francis Kovach. At times it seems you overuse his expertise on this topic. Consider adding other sources and reducing your reliance on Kovach.

Response 4: I added additional sources (five original Aquinas texts, two Balthasar texts, Avicenna, Bonaventure, another Gilson text, Michael Rubin’s dissertation, and Meldon Clarence Wass’s commentary on the Summa fratris Alexandri.

 

Thank you,

Author of The Transcendental Status of Beauty: Evaluating the Debate Among Neo-Thomistic Philosophers

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a really good paper, well written, well founded, clear and with a balanced metaphysical vision. Congratulations to the author.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for taking the time to read my paper.

Point 1: It is a really good paper, well written, well founded, clear and with a balanced metaphysical vision. Congratulations to the author.

Response 1: I appreciate the encouragement.

Thank you,

Author of The Transcendental Status of Beauty: Evaluating the Debate Among Neo-Thomistic Philosophers

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comments:

 

·       Throughout the article, articulations of major mediaeval scholars’ ideas are made, but the arguments presented make reference to secondary texts in the main. I would really encourage the author to refer to the primary texts for the sake of historical robustness.

·       In particular, since the focus of the article is Thomistic, it would be fitting to permit Aquinas to speak for himself. I would suggest that the author, at the very least, give particular treatment and a deep consideration of:

o   Summa Theologica, I, q. 5, a. 4, ad. 1

o   Summa Theologica, IIa, q. 27, a. 1, ad. 3.

·       In the introduction, the author explains:

 

“Our purpose for this research is not to determine whether or not beauty ought to be deemed transcendental from the standpoint of intellectual history, but rather to better understand the nature of beauty itself.”

 

However, as the article progresses, one realise that indeed the author is considering the transcendental nature of beauty, and really makes an argument for beauty as a transcendental. Further, if one refers to the title of the article, one may not get the idea that the above quoted is really the intention of the article. Finally, I would ponder whether the characterisation of beauty as transcendental, as the author does in the latter parts of the article, really somehow impede the contemplation of the nature of beauty?

·       In footnote 4, the author makes reference to an article on “Aristotle’s Categories” from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. However, why does the author not explore, scrutinise, and provide citation to the primary text of Aristotle, given his philosophical significance.

·       In terms of the discussion of Maritain and Gilson, especially from lines 121-134, it is noticeable that there is an absence of critical engagement with the theories of these two scholars. I would suggest that a philosophical engagement necessarily includes such encounters, where the engagement leads to a more objective understanding and less directly mere retelling of the theory. We must guard against, in philosophy, the mere stipulating of the theories of others.

·       Although Gilson’s theory is not well-developed between lines 121-134, I do note that later on in the text he is explored, but more in the sense of retelling than critically engaging with.

·       I am unsure of the author’s logical progression in including Albert the Great and Alexander of Hales in the section considering “A Contemporary Anti-Transcendentalist View on Beauty”? It would appear that these scholars positions do not fit here. Moreover, since these were precursors of Aquinas and Thomism, they should specifically be mentioned, perhaps, as influencing Aquinas but not providing a discourse on Thomistic views on beauty. I find their treatment to be superficial and in passing.

·       In relation to the consideration in the conclusion, I would suggest that the following could also be a line of thought: According to Aquinas, the good is the telos of all being, i.e., it is that state to which a being tends if it is most completely to be what it is (cf. the various articles that deal with “goodness” and the “good” in the ST, I, q. 5). If it is that goodness refers to the telos of all being, that both the good, the true, and the beautiful are convertible with being, that following from Aquinas himself, beauty is intimately related to contingent being. Could be an added way to propose that beauty is transcendent of particularities by its presence across all things that are? Indeed, the teleological nature of being touches on the ordering of the Divine of all created, contingent being, as eluded to in the conclusion. In this way, the argument made by the author could be a more authentic representation of Aquinas’ own voice rather than the particular intimations made by his interlocutors?

  

Comments relating to citations and the bibliography:

 

·       Please provide citations for the sentence between lines 97-99.

·       Line 137, include the first name of “Jan” for Aersten.

·       In the bibliography, the following changes should be made for consistency:

o   Eco entry: Add CT as the state of publication, since elsewhere the author has added the states.

o   Forlivesi entry: Delete Germany in the location of publication, since elsewhere the country has not been included in entries.

o   Gilson, 1964 entry: Insert NY after “New York”.

o   Maritain, 1948 entry: Delete “Great Britain”.

o   Maritain, 1962: Insert NY.

o   White, 2016 entry: The author’s first names are “Thomas Joseph”, and he is known for using both names.

 

Overall comments and recommendation:

 

·       The article is well-written, with very few linguistic and grammatical errors.

·       The sources provided in the text of the work as well as the bibliography are sufficient, indeed, developed to a solid degree.

·       The author has presented a successful and convincing article based upon the evaluation of varying Thomistic positions. However, the reviewer would appreciate the utilisation of primary sources for this comparison, and would suggest that the article would be strengthened by the conclusion of a text-based consideration of Aquinas’ own stance on beauty as a transcendental.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

·       Line 226: Delete “… Gilson does shows… ”

·       Line 229: “relates” should read “related”

·       Line 234: “as” should read “at”

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the careful evaluation and critique. I appreciate the challenges you brought to the article.

Point 1:    Throughout the article, articulations of major mediaeval scholars’ ideas are made, but the arguments presented make reference to secondary texts in the main. I would really encourage the author to refer to the primary texts for the sake of historical robustness.

• In particular, since the focus of the article is Thomistic, it would be fitting to permit Aquinas to speak for himself. I would suggest that the author, at the very least, give particular treatment and a deep consideration of:

o   Summa Theologica, I, q. 5, a. 4, ad. 1

o   Summa Theologica, IIa, q. 27, a. 1, ad. 3.

Response 1: From lines 217 – 311, I added a section exploring Aquinas’s original writings, including the ones you mentioned.

Point 2: n the introduction, the author explains:

“Our purpose for this research is not to determine whether or not beauty ought to be deemed transcendental from the standpoint of intellectual history, but rather to better understand the nature of beauty itself.”

However, as the article progresses, one realise that indeed the author is considering the transcendental nature of beauty, and really makes an argument for beauty as a transcendental. Further, if one refers to the title of the article, one may not get the idea that the above quoted is really the intention of the article. Finally, I would ponder whether the characterisation of beauty as transcendental, as the author does in the latter parts of the article, really somehow impede the contemplation of the nature of beauty?

Response 2: I removed this phrase about beauty from my abstract and thesis.

Point 3: In footnote 4, the author makes reference to an article on “Aristotle’s Categories” from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. However, why does the author not explore, scrutinise, and provide citation to the primary text of Aristotle, given his philosophical significance.

Response 3: I deleted the encyclopedia article and cited the relevant passages in Aristotle’s Metaphysics within the body of the paper, as well as Aquinas’s comment on Aristotle’s categories, in which he references Ethics 1.6, 1096a19 in line 302.

Point 4:    In terms of the discussion of Maritain and Gilson, especially from lines 121-134, it is noticeable that there is an absence of critical engagement with the theories of these two scholars. I would suggest that a philosophical engagement necessarily includes such encounters, where the engagement leads to a more objective understanding and less directly mere retelling of the theory. We must guard against, in philosophy, the mere stipulating of the theories of others.

• Although Gilson’s theory is not well-developed between lines 121-134, I do note that later on in the text he is explored, but more in the sense of retelling than critically engaging with.

Response 4: In lines 144-161, I added a section critically engaging with Maritain, contrasting his thought with Gilson's.

Point 5: I am unsure of the author’s logical progression in including Albert the Great and Alexander of Hales in the section considering “A Contemporary Anti-Transcendentalist View on Beauty”? It would appear that these scholars positions do not fit here. Moreover, since these were precursors of Aquinas and Thomism, they should specifically be mentioned, perhaps, as influencing Aquinas but not providing a discourse on Thomistic views on beauty. I find their treatment to be superficial and in passing.

Response 5: I removed this section.

Point 6: In relation to the consideration in the conclusion, I would suggest that the following could also be a line of thought: According to Aquinas, the good is the telos of all being, i.e., it is that state to which a being tends if it is most completely to be what it is (cf. the various articles that deal with “goodness” and the “good” in the ST, I, q. 5). If it is that goodness refers to the telos of all being, that both the good, the true, and the beautiful are convertible with being, that following from Aquinas himself, beauty is intimately related to contingent being. Could be an added way to propose that beauty is transcendent of particularities by its presence across all things that are? Indeed, the teleological nature of being touches on the ordering of the Divine of all created, contingent being, as eluded to in the conclusion. In this way, the argument made by the author could be a more authentic representation of Aquinas’ own voice rather than the particular intimations made by his interlocutors?

Response 6: From lines 217-311, I added a section evaluating Aquinas’s texts (including ST, I, q. 5) in order to represent his own voice to support my conclusion.

Thank you again,

Author of The Transcendental Status of Beauty: Evaluating the Debate Among Neo-Thomistic Philosophers

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract and the structure of this paper are much improved. The author makes a plausible case for including beauty as one of the transcendentals.

There are two places where the train of the argument remains puzzling.

1. On p. 5, within the discussion of Maritain on the nature of beauty, the author inserts a paragraph on St. Bonaventure and Von Balthasar, before returning to Maritain on the transcendental status of beauty. The reader needs a sentence that explains the transition. It seems possible this paragraph was inserted here by mistake.

2. On p. 8, the author inserts a paragraph referring to Cajetan's commentary on the Summa theologiae and Umberto Eco. This paragraph also needs a sentence that explains the transition, and why that is relevant. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a couple of footnotes that need slight revision. Footnote 34 (p. 5) reads "Ibid., 164" but I think this needs to read "Maritain, Creative Intuition in Art and Poetry, 164". Footnote 100 reads "Ibid., 259" but I think this needs to read "Kovach, Philosophy of Beauty, 259."

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for making these comments so quickly. Your suggestions are helpful to the train of argument.

Point 1: On p. 5, within the discussion of Maritain on the nature of beauty, the author inserts a paragraph on St. Bonaventure and Von Balthasar, before returning to Maritain on the transcendental status of beauty. The reader needs a sentence that explains the transition. It seems possible this paragraph was inserted here by mistake.

Response 1: I switched the order of the paragraphs here. Balthasar is described as a transcendentalist in the final sentence of the High and Late Scholastic Influence on Contemporary Views section. Then in the first sentence of the following section, I begin explaining his use of Bonaventure. In the next paragraph on Maritain, I conclude by asserting the similarity between Balthasar and Maritain’s view on beauty in relation to sense perception.

Point 2: On p. 8, the author inserts a paragraph referring to Cajetan's commentary on the Summa theologiae and Umberto Eco. This paragraph also needs a sentence that explains the transition, and why that is relevant.

Response 2: I rewrote the beginning of this paragraph. The relevance is that not all anti-transcendentalists agree why beauty should not be classified as a transcendental. I attempt to distinguish Cajetan’s point from Aertsen’s points. In the following sections, all objections (Cajetan’s point regarding universality in extension, as well as all Aerstan’s objections) are dealt with.

Sincerely,

Author of The Transcendental Status of Beauty: Evaluating the Debate Among Neo-Thomistic Philosophers