I explore the question of whether one has to reply to a paper such as this, and consider what a positive answer (in any respect) would teach us. I argue for a qualified Yes. By “reply” I refer to an attempt to write a paper responding to the original one, which addresses (some of) the major claims made in it. I first ask what philosophical papers are for, and note the important role played by replies to them. I consider special obligations to reply to philosophical papers; and the weaker pro tanto obligations that might exist for most professional philosophers. Finally, I consider objections to my claims; and the broader implications if my case is plausible.

我探讨了一个人是否必须回答这样的论文的问题，并考虑一个肯定的答案（在任何方面）会教给我们什么。我主张一个合格的 Yes。我所说的“回复”是指试图写一篇论文回应原始论文，该论文解决了其中提出的（一些）主要主张。我首先询问哲学论文的用途，并注意对它们的回复所起的重要作用。我认为回复哲学论文的特殊义务；以及大多数职业哲学家可能存在的较弱的pro tanto义务。最后，我考虑反对我的主张；如果我的案子合理，还有更广泛的影响。