BMCR 2009.04.08: Boeri on Reyes Bertolin on Boeri

Response: Boeri on Reyes Bertoli/n Cebria/n on Marcelo D. Boeri,
Apariencia y Realidad en el Pensamiento Griego. Investigaciones sobre
Aspectos Epistemolo/gicos, Eticos y de Teori/a de la Accio/n en Algunas
Teori/as de la Antigueedad.   Response to BMCR 2009.03.19


Response by Marcelo D. Boeri, Universidad de los Andes
([email protected])
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this response, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-04-08.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/04/20090408.html
-------------------------------

In her review of my book Apariencia y Realidad en el Pensamiento
Griego. Investigaciones sobre Aspectos Epistemolo/gicos, Eticos y de
Teori/a de la Accio/n en Algunas Teori/as de la Antigueedad (hereafter
AR), Reyes Bertoli/n Cebria/n (RBC) presents a number of objections and
criticisms that appear to me unfounded and clearly subjective.

First, she claims that, although I have done a good job explaining the
doctrines of Plato and Aristotle in great detail, I have presented
those authors and their doctrines in a manner that would not
necessarily appeal to the students in classics. Honestly, I do not
understand the nature of this objection, as I never intended my book
for the students of classics (i.e. people dedicated to Greek and Roman
literature, history, and so on), but for the classicists who are
involved in ancient philosophy; as RBC herself notes, my book is
intended mostly for philosophers in general or scholars interested in
ancient philosophy.

Second, RBC suggests that the title of AR might be "a bit misleading"
since the book is not focused on a general discussion of "the problems
of appearance and reality, but only as these concepts relate to the
idea of good". Probably RBC failed to read carefully my chapter 6
(where I discussed in detail some important issues of Aristotle's
epistemology, with a special focus on the Aristotelian theory of
perception and imagination or "appearance": phantasia); she also needs
to study more carefully my chapter 9, where I dealt with the Stoic
criterion of truth (the "cognitive presentation": kataleptike
phantasia). This being so, it is untrue that I concentrated my
discussion on the distinction appearance-reality only as related to the
idea of good. An important part of my research was to examine the
possibility of extending the theoretical criteria, so to speak, to the
practical domain. I have tried to do that when discussing Plato
(chapters 1-4), but I have found some evidence of that in Aristotle and
the Stoics (chapters 5-9). This can be a very debatable suggestion and,
in fact, constitutes a central point of my book. Unfortunately, in her
extremely general review RBC did not realize that; she just mentions in
passing (and in a descriptive manner) that my goal is "to explain
whether the ancient philosophers considered truth only as a theoretical
criterion or also practical". RBC also complains that I do not offer "a
survey of all theories of antiquity" (italics are mine). Of course, I
do not do that, but I never intended to do it.  As it is clearly
announced in the subtitle of my book  and in my Introduction, my survey
focused just on some theories of antiquity (Algunas teori/as de la
antigueedad), not on all of them.

Third, RBC objects that in AR "Analysis of these sources (sc. Plato's,
Aristotle's, and Stoics's texts) by other philosophers or historians of
philosophy is rarely mentioned in the body of the text or in the
footnotes". This remark could not be more unfair: although it is true
that I am particularly interested in the primary texts (as any scholar
is), it is untrue that other scholars or philosophers are "rarely"
mentioned in the body of the text or the footnotes. For instance, in
chapter 1 other scholars' and philosophers' views, such as C. Kahn, E.
Anscombe, A. Go/mez-Lobo, R.E. Allen, J. Austin, J. Stuart Mill, I.
Vasiliou, D. Davidson, G. Vlastos, T.C. Brickhouse and N. D. Smith, and
H. G. Gadamer are referred to and sometimes briefly discussed. Within
the same chapter 1 I have devoted at least one page and a half to
discuss a suggestion by E. Anscombe that may be useful to understand a
passage in Plato's Gorgias. In chapter 4, in discussing some aspects of
Plato's Theaetetus, I have cited or briefly discussed the views by W.
Wieland, L. Gerson, D. Bostock, M. Burnyeat, E. L. Gettier, J.
Moravcsik, J. Annas, F. Aronadio, A. Nehamas, T. Irwin, C. D. C. Reeve,
H. H. Benson, A. Brancacci, D. Sedley, S. Waterlow, G. Fine, J.
McDowell, G. Trindade Santos, F. Trabattoni, F. Ferrari, G. Ryle, C.
Kahn, E. Spinelli, and others. Something similar might be said of the
other chapters of my book, but I omit to list the scholars quoted and
discussed there for the sake of brevity (I just would like to briefly
mention that at the final section of chapter 7 I offer a discussion
where I make Aristotle have a dialogue with J. Searle; the last section
of my chapter 2 establishes some links between Plato and R. Rorty, and
states why Plato would not agree with Rorty on some important points.

Finally, RBC also objects that AR "lacks a general conclusion that
would have brought together commonalities and differences between the
three studies". That is true, but it is also true that each chapter is
endowed with partial conclusions. RBC also appears to complain that my
book is mostly about my own reading of the ancient authors, which
explains why, in her view, I'm not particularly concerned with the
modern literature. Despite this, RBC admits at the same time that I am
familiar with the current literature; besides the fact that this two
statements seem to be in contradiction, it is simply false that I do
not discuss the literature. As indicated above, all the chapters of my
book state a central thesis and offer some arguments to prove it; in
doing so, I refer to a number of papers and books published in the last
decades (mostly in English, but also in Spanish, Italian, French, and
German), both in the footnotes and in the body of the text. Sometimes I
agree with the cited scholars and philosophers, sometimes I disagree;
in the latter case, I always try to offer a reason for my disagreement.


To conclude, my interpretations in AR can be mistaken, my arguments
weak or even invalid. But in order to turn down an argument one must
present a better argument, showing that, either the premises of the
other argument are false or the conclusions do not follow. As far as I
can see, neither of these is done by RBC in her review. I am in the
habit of receiving criticism and indeed I do share the idea that
criticism is a healthy way of recognizing one's error, so that is not
the point here. It just seems to me that the readers of BMCR have the
right to receive a little more balanced judgment when reading a
critical review. Regrettably, RBC's review is extremely general (she
used 676 words to review a 376 page book), she never cites a page
number of AR or gives a precise reference to justify her views.  I do
not intend to engage in a sterile discussion with my reviewer; she
surely had her reasons for doing the job she did. However, I do hope
that my remarks in this response are helpful to the BMCR readers,
although I do not assume that anyone should agree with my
interpretations of ancient texts.