Rethinking Asceticism in Nietzsche with Zhuangzi: A Physio-Psychological Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is very clearly written and develops its argument in a cogent fashion. The argument is not as original as the Author suggests, and the perspectives developed on both Nietzsche and Zhuangzi can be found elsewhere, but they are skillfully combined.

The scholarship on Nietzsche is excellent. The one on Zhuangzi is a bit limited, but this might not be so important as the real focus of the article is on Nietzsche. As to Zhuangzi, the excerpts considered are limited to some sentences of ch.2 and 4. The expression "xinzhai' is found only once, in ch.4, in a specific context that has to do with the techniques of persuasion. The views of Zhuangzi as to "knowledge' and "language' (zhi and yan) are not as "dismissive' as the Author seems to imply since Zhuangzi clearly distinguishes between great knowledge and small knowledge, great speech and small speech. It is the difference between "great' and "small" that is foundational. Besides, if there is indeed a "forgetting of the self" (sang wo) this forgetting is enacted by a "I' (wu). Still, the overall view of Zhuangzi propounded here has been and can be supported, though I personally found it limited. But the use made of Zhuangzi indeed complements the Nietzschean discourse, which is the main point of the article. I still suggest to slightly qualify the overview of Zhuangzi's thought.

Author Response

Comment 1: understanding of Zhuangzi is limited compared to the Nietzschean scholarship.

Response: We agree. That's why we've added several secondary references to Zhuangzi.

Comment 2: Zhuangzi's view on knowledge should be explored with more nuance.

Response: We agree. We've added a discussion on non-knowing as a form of practical knowledge which is involved in zuowang.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very well-written, well-researched and enjoyable paper aiming at rethinking asceticism in Nietzsche from the perspective of Zhuangzi. Yet, while the treatment of Nietzsche’s work is adequate––the author demonstrates a solid grasp of the German philosopher’s thought by extensively referencing his works, the discussion dedicated to the ancient Chinese thinker and the book carrying his name needs to undergo some revision. To begin with minor issues, the author states that the trope of “losing the self” appears at the end of the opening dialogue of the chapter “Qiwulun” (303). This is inaccurate, because the main protagonist of this story, Nanguo Ziqi, informs his disciple about the “loss of the self” already in the first part of their conversation. Going over to more serious problems, when interpreting this story, the author uses a number of notions stemming from other chapters of the Zhuangzi, without even mentioning this fact. In this manner, the themes of “mind fasting”, “forgetting language” and “losing the self” (292-313) appear to be addressing the same issue or, at least, appear closely interconnected. This, however, is by no means self-evident, and needs to be demonstrated. By linking these tropes without an explanation or references to relevant scholarship, the author engages in a very free interpretation of the Zhuangzi. Furthermore, when concluding their paper, the author claims to have contrasted Nietzsche’s ideas with, among others, the “Zhuangzian ascetic practice” of “forgetting oneself while sitting (zuowang 坐忘)” (489-490). Oddly, this is the very first time the given notion appears in the paper. It is regretful that the author mention zuowang only here and do not engage in the discussion of how “smashing up one’s limbs and body”, one of the main characteristics of zuowang, can be reconciled with Nietzsche’s affirmation of the “body-self”. The revised version of the paper should take this into consideration. 

Author Response

Comment 1: To begin with minor issues, the author states that the trope of “losing the self” appears at the end of the opening dialogue of the chapter “Qiwulun” (303). This is inaccurate, because the main protagonist of this story, Nanguo Ziqi, informs his disciple about the “loss of the self” already in the first part of their conversation. Going over to more serious problems, when interpreting this story, the author uses a number of notions stemming from other chapters of the Zhuangzi, without even mentioning this fact. In this manner, the themes of “mind fasting”, “forgetting language” and “losing the self” (292-313) appear to be addressing the same issue or, at least, appear closely interconnected. This, however, is by no means self-evident, and needs to be demonstrated. By linking these tropes without an explanation or references to relevant scholarship, the author engages in a very free interpretation of the Zhuangzi.

Response: We agree. We've added more explanation to show why the loss of the self is about double subjectivity: eliminating the analytical and cultivating the qi-subject. Therefore, there is still a kind of subject involved in the process, and it is not opposing to things or objectifying them.

Comment 2: Furthermore, when concluding their paper, the author claims to have contrasted Nietzsche’s ideas with, among others, the “Zhuangzian ascetic practice” of “forgetting oneself while sitting (zuowang 坐忘)” (489-490). Oddly, this is the very first time the given notion appears in the paper. It is regretful that the author mention zuowang only here and do not engage in the discussion of how “smashing up one’s limbs and body”, one of the main characteristics of zuowang, can be reconciled with Nietzsche’s affirmation of the “body-self”. The revised version of the paper should take this into consideration. 

Response: We agree. We've added an explanation in a passage on zuowang very early in the text.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Part IV and the Conclusion strike me as a bit muddled, given that Part IV bounces around between comparing and contrasting Nietzsche & Zhuangzi while throwing in references to Stoicism and Epicurianism without making a very clear point, and the Conclusion again contrasting Nietzsche and Zhuangzi while reiterating that Nietzsche lacks a comprehensive account of self-cultivation, a lack that your abstract and introduction promised to fix with the help of Zhuangzi.  In the end I was not sure what you thought you had demonstrated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I found only a few minor errors.  I think "century" should not be capitalized and the reference should be BCE rather than BC (line 23).  It should be "criticised" rather than "criticising" (line 27).  At line 156 there is a stray word "in" in the sentence "... (Leib-Selbst) in, it ...  Line 191 should have "are" rather than "is" ("...Daoist techniques of self-transformation are relevant...").  Line 223,  "dyamised" is not a word.  Line 261:  "While the human language categorises..."  There should not be a semicolon after "Yet" in line 412.  In line 503 there is a typographical error ("reflection",  not "relfection").

Author Response

Comment 1: 

Part IV and the Conclusion strike me as a bit muddled, given that Part IV bounces around between comparing and contrasting Nietzsche & Zhuangzi while throwing in references to Stoicism and Epicurianism without making a very clear point, and the Conclusion again contrasting Nietzsche and Zhuangzi while reiterating that Nietzsche lacks a comprehensive account of self-cultivation, a lack that your abstract and introduction promised to fix with the help of Zhuangzi.  In the end I was not sure what you thought you had demonstrated.

Response: Agree. We've removed Part IV to avoid distraction from the main argument, and rewritten the conclusion.   Comment 2: on the Quality of English Language

I found only a few minor errors.  I think "century" should not be capitalized and the reference should be BCE rather than BC (line 23).  It should be "criticised" rather than "criticising" (line 27).  At line 156 there is a stray word "in" in the sentence "... (Leib-Selbst) in, it ...  Line 191 should have "are" rather than "is" ("...Daoist techniques of self-transformation are relevant...").  Line 223,  "dyamised" is not a word.  Line 261:  "While the human language categorises..."  There should not be a semicolon after "Yet" in line 412.  In line 503 there is a typographical error ("reflection",  not "relfection").

Response: Agree. We've revised the language accordingly.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

ok