Reply to Jahren

This is a reply to Neal Jahren's “Comments” on my paper, “Uncovering Gynocentric Science,” which appeared in a 1987 issue of Hypatia 2 (3).     

Reply to Rowe

In our reply to Rowe, we explain why most of what he criticizes is actually the product of his misunderstanding our argument. We begin by showing that nearly all of his Part 1 misconceives our project by defending a position we never attacked. We then question why Rowe thinks the distinction we make between motivational and virtue intellectualism is unimportant before developing a defense of the consistency of our views about different desires. Next we turn to Rowe??s criticisms of our account of the prudential paradox and show these criticisms to rest on a misunderstanding. We close with some remarks about the implausibility and textual problems Rowe faces in denying that Socrates recognized a role for painful punishments.     

Reply to Commentary

This commentary is a response to questions and discussion points raised by Peter Fonagy and Mary Target in “Playing with the Reality of Analytic Love.” It includes a discussion of the relationship between attachment and sexuality, in addition to issues concerning seductiveness, sadomasochism and therapeutic change.