some thoughts in response to andrew on top philosophers of now. one thing i should say is that i read impressionistically and across disciplines, and people know more than i do. true that we have in the last few years lost a cohort: quine, nozick, rorty, rawls, baudrillard, derrida, etc. some of that generation, more or less, remain. i often introduce the work of arthur danto to my classes by saying he is the best and most eminent living philosopher of art, but he had tackled the whole range of issues in his time. is saul kripke still out there somewhere kicking analytic ass? robert brandom is an interesting example of developments in analytic philosophy toward something a bit more open. on the continental tip everyone has been reading slavoj zizek, a wildly creative and various figure who seems to take the provocative stance that marxism is beautiful. i saw him on c-span the other day. what an insane collection of unwatchable tics. but what really disturbs me about zizek is that his work has dramtically delayed the moment where we could just euthanize lacan. alain badiou, also a maoist or something? actually is one of the most interesting people writing today, has re-thought 'truth,' for example, profoundly. my friend karmen mackendrick is an eccentric american continentalist and genius.the world of political philosophy has seemed dominated by rawls v. nozick interpretations of classical liberalism vs. sandel/macintyre communitarianism. philip pettit has revised classical republicanism as an alternative, and his book republicanism is as big as (or, almost) a theory of justice or anarchy, state, and utopia, and maybe as important. more will occur!