First, I Would Like To Thank the respondents for their thoughtful and generous response to my book. I have found myself challenged by their observations, I have learned from them, and I have been stimulated to new thoughts of my own. Second, I would like to make a more substantive point, which is intended to frame the remarks that follow. I would like to say that translation is not understood well if it is thought of simply as linguistic exchange. All the respondents have taken this on board, but it is worth reaffirming as it is so easily overlooked.
Jim Garrison's inclination in response to my book is to defend Dewey specifically against my claim that there is an absence of existential disturbance or discord in Dewey's work. Dewey has an account of or expresses an experiential sense of existential discord. I appreciate the point, though I think it is...
