To read poetry is not to read ‘about’ poetry, and yet it seems that the major concerns of philosophy concern its own ‘aboutness’, like watching characters in a play looking for a plot. Clearly, even amongst the philosophers interviewed here, there exists a general objection to the professional philosopher increasing their kudos by adding their ‘bit’ to an academic structure with not much significance ensuing.
Yet when there is some discussion on subject-matter, one is left with a sense of exasperation. It may be valid philosophical speculation to analyse a concept such as vagueness, but my feeling is that the notion of the discrete is more relevant in the quantum realm where its impact is more interesting and pronounced, yet no reference is made to it. Leibniz also analysed the notion of infinitesimals in a way that led to his calculus. What exactly is to be the fruit of an entirely philosophical analysis that does not seem to extend beyond the range of an academic concern with it? Metaphysical concerns do not seem to fare much better, since (as an example) the concepts of time that are discussed seem extremely rudimentary, as if the subject is done and dusted, when in fact the subject is wide open. Post-analytic philosophy, apparently the new direction, reiterates the traditional function of philosophy as a questioner of assumptions, assumes that science is already fully questioned (while we live under the yoke of the same principles of motion that have been kept in place for the best part of 400 years), and then assumes it is its own best-placed arbiter of deciding what assumptions should be questioned in its own house. Nor is there any reference to process philosophy as a vibrant force. (Every major philosopher from the 20th century gets a mention except Whitehead!) Nor is there any reference to the current vacuum in science that is preventing progress in the quantum gravity problem and which is crying out for a greater philosophical involvement, and which is getting none. And this is the major philosophical problem of the 21st century.
Of the interviews given here, those with female philosophers were the most engaging. The later interview concerning the status of artificial intelligence was also of some merit, so perhaps it is not all doom and gloom. However, it does seem that for the most part a great deal of energy is expended in the pursuit of very little, and one is left with a sense of what is the fashion at the moment rather than what are the concerns of greatest moment and urgency. But by and large, it is a commendable read, inciting both a sense of disappointment as well as hope.
