Elements of a First-Person Ecology: Historical Roots, Recognition and Ecospirituality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While I enjoyed reading the article and definitely agree with the authors' many points, it's more theology than environmental philosophy. It's more historical background than argument. Truthfully, I can't imagine who the audience is for this article (unless it's members of a church/temple, commune or community gardeners) or what the authors intend to achieve by publishing it.  I say this because this article proposes a way of engaging with the natural world, yet I don't see readers who are not already in agreement with the authors considering dumping their SUVs, family vacations or consumerist mentality to join the ecospiritual revolution.  While I understand the authors' criticism of science's third-person perspective, 99.9% of what happens in the natural world (ecosystem functioning, biodiversity, entropy, soil fertility, water resources) is unavailable most human beings' first-person perspectives. Additionally, Feminist science has rather convincingly shown that science is more "first-person" than scientists feign. Moreover, the aspects of nature humans tend to appreciate (gardens, lawns, farmland, golf courses) is typically highly entropic and rarely supports habitat. I realize that this is not what the authors have in mind by "first-person ecology," but I find "first-person" perspectives flawed. Since the authors are asking people to think about the plants and animals that share our habitats, maybe "second-person ecology" works better since "you" (not "I/we") is the target for a philosophy that emphasizes "letting go, letting it be or decentering the self." While it's true that knowledge regarding impending environmental disasters hasn't managed to change people's attitudes and behaviors, I worry that non-spiritual people are unlikely to consider leading/joining an "ecospiritual revolution." Finally, any references to nature as feminine, as in "Mother Earth," are hugely problematic. There is already a plenty of research that show that gendering nature feminine has facilitated nature's destruction, no differently than societal abuses/control/oppression of women, more generally. I find it odd that none of the major players in environmental philosophy are mentioned. There's a lot of work on "kinship," which is what this paper seems to be addressing.        

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is mostly fine.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to evaluate our article. You will find the answers to your comments in the attached document.

Kind regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think that the paper does not present major problems at the level of arguments and consistency between objectives and methodology. However, I fail to understand what is the novelty of the proposal (how would first-person ecology differ from the same approach of Naess, mentioned by the author himself) or its originality. Besides, it seems to me that in some chapters the paper is rather didactic and simply descriptive of the proposal of other authors (e.g., in the part describing Naess's ecosophy or Leopold's land ethic). On the other hand, I find it rather strange that in 3.3.1. there is no mention of Naess himself, who is one of the major authors who have raised the issue of self-realization at the ecological level.

In general, it seems to me that the focus of the paper is too broad and tries to cover too many topics, often erring on the side of superficiality (e.g., is chapter 2.1. necessary, which talks about something already known and in this paper very little argued?)

In this sense, it seems to me that at present the paper cannot be published. The author should revise it entirely, trying to leave out the obvious and focus on the question: what is the novelty of the approach I propose? Is it really a novelty, in the current scientific landscape? I am not entirely sure, however, that such a complete restructuring of the paper is possible. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to evaluate our article. You will find the answers to your comments in the attached document.

Kind regards,

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Concerning the question the authors made at the end of their commentary, I think the should cite a tradition - more than a single author: the first-person Christian Ecology and the "human ecology" (from a philosophical point of view) tradition.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for these suggestions. We have included the reference to the tradition of human ecology in its philosophical dimensions as a footnote in the conclusion, p. 17. However, since convergences with many traditions (religious or philosophical) are possible, we have chosen not to include references to specific works.

Kinds regards