Holt' critique of my article is based on fundamental differences in our approach to Freud studies and its relevance to contemporary psychoanalytic theory and practice. In my rejoinder I argue that Holt' view of Freud' metapsychology is biased along two dimensions: He accepts the narrowed scientistic view of Freud' metapsychology which is the legacy of Freud' followers and translators, and he asserts empiricist criteria for evaluating that metapsychology which are the legacy of American ego-psychology. As a result he underemphasizes the relational, hermeneutic, and epistemological components of Freud' theory. I argue that Holt' criteria are not the best for evaluating the metapsychology or judging which aspects of Freud' theory are most helpful to contemporary psychoanalysis.