From Reality without Mysteries to the Mystery of the World: Marilena Chaui’s Reading of Spinoza’s Tractatus Theologico-Politicus
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a serviceable intro to Chaui, but it does not show what her particular intervention was, or place her in conversation with any other scholarship.
Author Response
A paragraph in the end of the article was added to answer this question.
Reviewer 2 Report
Caught a typo: Joahn and Cornelius de Witt -> Johan and Cornelius de Witt
p. 17 (grifado) - to be deleted?
p. 17m60 “system of the fear” - should this be "system of fear"?
p. 18 ingenio - should this be (Latin nominative) ingenium?
p. 20 the Teológico-político - translate
p. 21 ex sola Scriptura - this methodological principle is usually called sola Scriptura (instrumental ablative, by Scripture alone)
p. 21 Treaty - better to go with Treatise, Tractate, or Tractatus?
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Caught a typo: Joahn and Cornelius de Witt -> Johan and Cornelius de Witt
- 17 (grifado) - to be deleted?
- 17m60 “system of the fear” - should this be "system of fear"?
- 18 ingenio - should this be (Latin nominative) ingenium?
- 20 the Teológico-político - translate
- 21 ex sola Scriptura - this methodological principle is usually called sola Scriptura (instrumental ablative, by Scripture alone)
- 21 Treaty - better to go with Treatise, Tractate, or Tractatus?
Author response:
All the comments were incorporated into the text and the corrections indicated by the Reviewer 2 were made.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article should be better organized. There is no clear connection between sections, thus, the reader is easily confused. Moreover, the relevance of certain segments -like the one where the author mentions Brazil's political issues- is not particularly highlighted, and as a result, it seems out of place. The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the analysis made by the author throughout the paper.
Grammar must be check, some sentences are not even finished or they are mixed up.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
The article should be better organized. There is no clear connection between sections, thus, the reader is easily confused. Moreover, the relevance of certain segments -like the one where the author mentions Brazil's political issues- is not particularly highlighted, and as a result, it seems out of place. The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the analysis made by the author throughout the paper.
Grammar must be check, some sentences are not even finished or they are mixed up.
Author response:
The grammar was checked twice by the author and the Editors.
A new conclusion was written in the end of the text.
And the article was completely reestructured by the author, with the help of the Editors, to attend the comments of the Reviewer 3. The changes were (I will list below to make more easy to identify):
- I added new paragraphs in the end of the Introduction (lines: 167-215) to show how the sections and its thematics are connected between themselves through the text.
- I have numbered the sections and made them explicits in the introduction.
- I have excluded all the section called "Convergences and Distinctions between the Three Activities under Analysis in the TTP: Believing, Thinking and Organizing" (lines: 595-658)
- I corrected the English language mistakes indicated by the reviewers on the portal, as well others that I have identified.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The structure and grammar have been improved. There is still a bit of confusion about the sequence of sections but overall is fine.
