Good book in sections, some of the conversations are a little off. Still worth reading, though. ( )

"…the reader of philosophy must be aware of frauds, who exploit the known difficulty of the subject in order to disguise unexamined premises as hard-won conclusions". — Roger Scruton, 1996

Astra Taylor should be commended for the project; it is well intentioned and she asks just the right questions. She is a sympathetic and sincere inquirer, and she is willing to be vulnerable and scrutinize the answers she hears. The value of the book lies in discovering just where modern philosophy is "at". So, where is it?

First, the playas. Miss Taylor has put together a roster of talking-heads that represent the elite chairs of literature and philosophy from America's most prestigious universities and colleges. I suppose the notion behind this is that they will have something of substance to offer given that they are tenured. Problem: getting paid by a system that does not tolerate genuine, critical inquiry. For example, Peter Singer is not really a philosopher, but an evangelist of eugenics and animal rights. He would, if given the opportunity, have all the weak and old put to death, in order to ensure the survival of the race lead by men such as himself, of course. But, killing chickens? Oh, the horror. He is the grand-child of Margaret Sanger and Hitler, besides being a complete bore of an interviewee.

Second, although these folks have differences in application and emphasis, they all represent the same system of thought: totally naturalistic and anti-spiritual. They all assume uncritically the biotic aspect of existence as the basic metaphysical truth of everything. They have dilated biological evolution as the core identity of man, so they are no longer asking the actual philosophical question: "What is man?" Likewise, nearly to a man/woman, they believe that the state is the means of change and authority. What this implies is that for their ideas to work, i.e. Marxism, the sword must be used in order to convince the dull, the non-philosophical, the lame among us.

By the end of the book I was convinced that the notion that honest, sincere inquiry is alive and well is a naive one. At one point Miss Taylor asks Miss Nussbaum: "What is justice?" But, unlike Socrates, she just evades answering it, and instead assumes the answer is obvious and begins bloviating about "inequalities" and "global justice" (pp. 115-116). So, what is justice? Socrates would be asking more questions, but Miss Nussbaum simply assumes she has the answer.

The two high points are Ronell and Zizek. The first because she is critical of her own thinking, and asks herself the kinds of questions that lead to more insight. She is, simply put, interesting. Despite her attachment to Derrida, she is willing to continue to think beyond the conclusions of her mentor. Zizek is, just fun. His popularity likely has to do with his good-natured playfulness as much as his nimble mind. He is a Marxist, but he reads GK Chesterton. Funny, but the two people who were the most compelling and engaging were either trained by foreigners or were foreigners themselves.

Miss Taylor has done a wonderful job of revealing how little is really going on in the heads of Western thinkers, the supposed point-of-the-spear of intellectual activity in this country. Although she asks the right questions, the answers are evasions and generally devolve into preaching. The Socratic approach to dialectic is lost on the better part of the elites involved with this project. Read this book if you are having doubts about being brilliant. You will go away with renewed confidence.

In closing: Socrates was never paid for what he did, and although many of these people refer to him as the exemplar, they are not willing to actually follow the model. These people represent the current establishment — the elite, bobo vanguard, comfortable with their salaries and tenured chairs, but just edgy enough to seem like they are offering the plebes something substantial. ( )