Read the referee reports and editorial comment very carefully and objectively, and try to understand these from their point of view. Authors are often very close to the submitted paper and what appears obvious, perhaps after weeks of hard thinking, is not always so clear to an outside, objective referee. Perhaps the explanation is inadequate, some of the exposition misleading or important steps in a proof are quickly glossed over. In such a case, don't blame the referee, but instead see it as an opportunity to better illuminate your ideas in a clear and lucid manner. Often, criticism comes from a refereeing misunderstanding and the onus is upon the author(s), through clear explanation, to prevent any such misunderstanding in a reading of a revision.
If the reports suggest that a result is incorrect, or things might have been done in a better way, don't become emotional. Try and think hard and objectively about the comments, perhaps putting them aside for a week or so and coming back later. Ultimately, you are writing for readers of the journal and referees are the first of those readers. If you cannot communicate with them in your revision, then very few readers of Fuzzy Sets and Systems would understand it either.
If, after a cooling down period, you are still convinced that one or more of the referees are blockheads, have made elementary mistakes and are ignorant of the field, and the Editors are unsympathetic, supply a rejoinder with your revision. Emphasise those criticisms which have been accommodated and very carefully explain why the others are either incorrect or due to some lack of clarity (now corrected). Perhaps implementing all suggestions would make the paper unwieldy, or some may even be incompatible - state all these explanations in a clear, objective and unemotional way.
If referees ask for examples, motivation and applications, try and give them. If a referee has provided a counterexample and suggested a way that it may be circumvented by strengthening/weakening hypotheses or definitions, gratefully seize upon the advice. It is an indication that, despite flaws, the referee feels that the ideas are worthy and the paper deserves patching. Sometimes, this goes to the point of a referee summarising how the revision should be written, how revised definitions and theorems framed and proven. Authors should not be outraged by such presumption - they should treat the suggestions like gold. Referees and Editors are extremely busy people. They do not go to such trouble unless the paper and its ideas have stimulated them in some way.
But, please, whatever you do, don't simply change a few words, add one or two references and submit essentially the same paper without comment. It will be rejected.