The following response takes some questions prompted by Rose's paper as a starting point for a discussion of her work in general. I propose to repay the wit, imagination and intelligence of Rose's paper with a gift of one-sided and near-sighted objections.¹ I wish to discuss four topics in particular: the relation between philosophy and the human and social sciences in Rose's work; the relation between the existential and the legal-political; the return of pathos to logos; and the separation of speculative from dialectical thinking.