[rmk2]

The review makes it sound as if nobody else pointed out the interwovenness of "the" Enlightenment, capitalism and increasingly isolated, individualist modern societies. Yet, while they might fall under the category of "Utopia" which are supposedly not needed, these points have been investigated extensively (and rather famously) by people like Adorno & Horkheimer in their "Dialektik der Aufklärung" (Dialect of Enlightenment) and their individual works, in various essays within Marcuse's "Kultur & Gesellschaft", in Deleuze/Guattari's L'anti-Œdipe (Anti-Oedipus) as well as many similar scholars that can be described perhaps most broadly as successors to the "Left-Hegelians", among whom especially Feuerbach and Marx also stand out in their respective appraisals of a capitalist, utilitarian society and the heritage of christianity, respectively.

When it comes to "huddling", Heidegger's "Sein & Zeit" (Being & Time) at the very latest emphasised the importance of being-in-the-world and being-with-others, rendering being entirely social (and this is despite the fact that the book remained, in essence, a fragment). Similarly, Wittgenstein's "Philosophischen Untersuchungen" (Philosophical Investigations) also highlights the shared nature of language games and the importance of society when he ponders the overall possibility whether private language(s) can exist. In doing so, both remain thoroughly wed to the modern world and do not harken back to a "simple society" or some such.

However, this list seems to suggest a different bias by describing the Western World chiefly as one designed by Smith & Hobbes, leaning on a relatively narrowly defined notion of anglophone philosophy to define the status quo as a direct consequence of the Enlightenment. It also betrays a fairly narrow focus on the US, since, as one comment on the site itself rightfully asks, this fails to account for developments such as the modern welfare state in various places outside the US, which would have to be impossible for a strictly isolated and/or egoistic society that forgot the importance of living together. And while the review off-handendly discounts both capitalism and communism, it fails to account for any of the real-world examples of societies located somewhere between these two polar opposites, as these social contracts seem to fulfil exactly the kind of "moral economy" that seems to be at play. That said,because these countries, in turn, face their own turmoil and challenges, this would seemingly get us back to where we started, except that we would already have gotten rid of an overly simplistic dichotomy that seems to have Smith and Lenin as their respective strawmen-come-cornerstone. In that case, however, we're faced with an interesting conundrum: If neither capitalism nor communism is the right answer, and if seemingly moderated in-between states face similar challenges, what exactly does the book advocate that is not yet another utopia that somehow safeguards the individual's freedom while also including it in a network of social interaction, responsibility and mutual assistance without being like any of the discounted examples or extremes?

[clydethefrog]

Fantastic comment - thanks for summarizing the same thoughts I had reading this review.

In the interesting times we are currently living in, it seems many Anglo-Saxon political philosophers and other analytic academics are creating a theory Continental philosophy already figured out during the second half of the 20th century. (I see something similar with the current developments AI and Heidegger - Dreyfus phenomenology, but that's a bit off topic since this focuses on politics) Why? Is the difference in language the two schools use to communicate ideas too big? Did so many dismiss the esoteric writing as nonsense without even reading it, or worse, believe the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory? The result is now an identity crisis of people disaffected by the machinations they used to defend. The actualization of ideas only modern and post-modern critics used to lament. The things the Frankfurt School[0], Foucault, Derrida and Lacan used to write about in ridiculed corners of academia are now actually affecting these people and they have no idea what is happening.

[0] For anyone wanting to know more, the New York Review of Books just published in their latest edition a great article that summarizes their ideas. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/03/23/frankfurt-school-...

[rmk2]

There definitely seems to be a language barrier, even if they all are easily available in translation. I think one of the more interesting distinctions there is Marcuse, who I see separated sometimes into the "German" Marcuse (including his early-ish exile writings) and the "American" Marcuse as part of the New Left. Meanwhile, on the continent, traditionally, studying philosophy meant knowing Greek, potentially Latin (since that came as part of a Humanist education either way), German and French, which is why you see a lot of reception flowing either way (Derrida reading Kafka etc., Adorno/Horkheimer reading de Sade, everybody reading Marx & Engels). Some of the English translations are also (still!) in a worse state, such as Bourdieu's core text "Outline of a Theory of Practice" which in English exists mainly as the 1977 CUP translation, while there exists a much more recent (post-2000) revised and extended translation based on a later version by Bourdieu, who made some quite substantial changes.

This might very well be the slightly awkward clash between a generally anglophone audience and their regular focus on the US and, to a lesser degree, England, combined with the spectre of "evil" Marxism.

[AnimalMuppet]

> In the interesting times we are currently living in, it seems many Anglo-Saxon political philosophers and other analytic academics are creating a wheel Continental philosophy already figured out during the second half of the 20th century.

Continental philosophy may have done well at identifying the problem. I'm not sure that they figured out a solution, though.