I am, generally speaking, a very sloppy philosopher. By which I mean that, for example, I tend to think things like „Yeah right, but do you really need this further distinction here?“ or „Well, I’m not in the mood for reading another paper on this topic, so I’ll just go with what I have read so far“ or „Fuck it, I’ll just send this paper off to this or that journal now, I can’t stand looking at it anymore“ or even, most disturbingly, „Who cares?“
I am, on the other hand, and also generally speaking, a very passionate writer. By which I mean that, for example, I tend to think things like „Is zum Schweigen bringen really the best choice for a translation of silencing, or might not mundtot machen be a better one?“ or „I should avoid the gerund in this sentence“ or „Let’s have a look at this or that thesaurus and find out whether there is a more fitting word for what you are trying to say“ or even, most disturbingly, „Why not read this sentence/paragraph aloud and see how it sounds?“
These characteristics of mine, taken in combination, make for interesting reviews of my papers. Because, again, generally speaking, the reviewers tend to acknowledge that my papers are very well written, while urging me to firm up my arguments.