From Philosophy of Religion to Philosophy of Religious Experience: On New Tendencies in French Phenomenology of Religion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting essay that displays extensive familiarity and expertise in the field. The problem is that many of the substantive claims are proposed without adequate defense or explanation. Lns 142-146, for example, identify 3 pillars of the philosophy of religion, but after enumerating them the reader would be hard pressed to understand why or how they function as such pillars. These lapidary formulations are found throughout. Section 5, for example, enters into the fray of "religious experience" but in the end winds up with declarations concerning "the irreducible" that are as formal as they are vague. The author is aware of this (ln 311) but when s/he seeks to move beyond theoretical accounts of religious experience we are presented, instead, with what strikes me as a Christological anthropology. This anthropology is indeed fascinating and to a large extent even compelling. I am not myself Christian but I learned a lot from the presentation of Falque's thought. It is not clear to me, however, how the central claim of the essay can be maintained in view of the Christological anthropology that it defends in the name of "religious experience". If anything, the argument provides reasons for legitimizing a dialectical relation between religious experience and Christianity, perhaps even a legitimization of heresy for the sake of a more "mature" theology that can incorporate the excess of religious experience over Christian theology.  Religious experience, however, is surely a much wider category than Christian experience, and this essay at most accomplishes the worthwhile goal of vindicating the extension and application of Christian experience to Christian thought.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I trust this message finds you well. I would like to update you on the revisions made to the manuscript in light of your valuable feedback. I appreciate your thorough review and have addressed your concerns as follows:

Reviewer 1:
(i) The article presented for review is only a preliminary study of the philosophy of religious experience as a new tendency increasingly and all the more clearly marking the general direction of French religious thought. I agree with the Reviewer that some of the issues raised here have not received in-depth development or detailed justification, and remain merely mentioned. Unfortunately, however, such an in-depth examination of all the issues raised in this article would greatly exceed the scope of a scholarly article and would inevitably require making it into a book. The value of the study presented here is to draw the attention of researchers to these problems and to identify significant new areas for further research. The author plans to continue this research and at the same time invite the wider academic community to join in.

I've provided more in-depth defense and explanation for the substantive claims proposed in lines 142-146. The revised text now elucidates why and how these three pillars of the philosophy of religion function as foundational.

(ii) To clarify the central claim of the essay, particularly in relation to the Christological anthropology defending "religious experience," I've slightly expanded and clarified the relevant sections to ensure the maintainability of the argument.

I believe these revisions align with your recommendations, addressing both major concerns regarding substantive claims and the central thesis, as well as minor suggestions related to specific content and presentation.

I do appreciate your kind words and support. I am sincerely grateful for the constructive feedback provided by you and believe that these revisions significantly strengthen the manuscript.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to any additional guidance or feedback you may provide.

Best regards,

Author

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "From philosophy of religion to philosophy of religious experience. On new tendencies in French phenomenology of religion“ is well-written, and I extend my congratulations to the authors for their insightful exploration of the relationship between the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of religious experience in the French cultural context.

I would like to offer a few suggestions that, in my opinion, could enhance this valuable manuscript:

 

Firstly, I recommend correcting the spelling of Emmanuel Levinas to Lévinas.

 

In line 219, as well as in lines 229 and 242, it would be beneficial to include the author's name.

 

While the authors delve into the analysis of the philosophy of religious experience from a phenomenological perspective, I sense that the manuscript may be somewhat incomplete. Therefore, I propose that the authors consider dedicating a separate chapter to elucidate what prompts the French school to shift away from the philosophy of religion towards an interpretation of the phenomenology of religious experience. This addition could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the subject matter and enhance the overall quality of the manuscript. If the inclusion of an additional chapter would overly strain the paper's structure, it is acceptable for the paper to retain its current form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I trust this message finds you well. I would like to update you on the revisions made to the manuscript in light of the valuable feedback provided by you. I appreciate your thorough review and have addressed your concerns as follows:

(i) I've included additional context on what prompts the French school to shift away from the philosophy of religion towards an interpretation of the phenomenology of religious experience. This addition aims to offer a clearer understanding of the transition. I based this adjustment mainly on Emmanuel Falque's work, which I find most significant in regard to this issue.

Allow me to extend my most sincere appreciation of your kind words regarding my humble paper. Thank you for your professionalism and genuine support. I am sure we would have many inspiring discussions. 

I wish you a very happy New Year 2024.

Best regards,

Author

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is very well documented, even if it is limited to French literature only.

I suggest the author to remove: Line 193: "now considered classic in France" because the book is less classic than author consider it. The book also contains inaccuracies in the reconstruction of phenomenological history, and the part devoted to analytic philosophy is very poor and does not take into account the extensive debate on the subject.

 

I also suggest not to have too short paragraphs like 3 and 4 (the paragraphs are about Greisch and Duméry, this shortness disturbs the reading) : the author could perhaps unite them in a single paragraph.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I trust this message finds you well. I would like to update you on the revisions made to the manuscript in light of the valuable feedback provided by you. I appreciate your thorough review and have addressed your concerns as follows:

(i) I have removed the statement "now considered classic in France" from line 193, acknowledging the suggestion that the book may not be as classic as initially portrayed. I have replaced it with a mention of two Grand Prix granted to Romano by The French Academy (one for the book discussed herein and another one for all his works on history of phenomenology). This is what actually prompted the remark about the book being a "classic". However, I would like to add that to my best knowledge the aforementioned work is held in high esteem among French phenomenological scholars (despite some of its imperfections rightly pointed out by the Reviewer).

(ii) In response to the suggestion of merging paragraphs 3 and 4 concerning Greisch and Duméry, I've combined these short paragraphs into a single, more cohesive paragraph for improved readability.

I believe these revisions align with the your recommendations, addressing both major concerns regarding substantive claims and the central thesis, as well as minor suggestions related to specific content and presentation.

Allow me to extend my sincere appreciation of your kind words regarding my humble paper. I am grateful for your time, consideration and genuine support.

I wish you a very happy New Year 2024.

Best regards,

Author