A couple of readers kindly called to my attention what purports to be a review of my edited collection The Future for Philosophy published in The Economist, though the review itself is unsigned (Anthony Gottlieb, a philosophical popularizer, is an editor at that journal, but it is unclear whether he is responsible for this item [UPDATE:  Gottlieb assures me he is not the author.]).  Despite the fact that the review is short–and the second edition of Ted Honderich’s Oxford Companion to Philosophy (to which I also contributed, with help a year ago from many readers–my thanks again!) is also being reviewed in the same piece–several paragraphs are given over to the following quite unbelievable smear of the contributors and me:

The editor of the collection, Brian Leiter, makes a plea for three thinkers whom the analytical tradition tends to neglect or dismiss: Marx, Nietzsche and Freud. Backing unfashionable figures is not the only reason he stands out. A while ago he hit on a solution to the question of how to rank philosophy departments….It is called the Philosophical Gourmet and you can see it on the web.

Although plenty of philosophers consult the Gourmet, it makes others of them cringe. Two years ago close on 300, including some from top-ranked New York University and Rutgers, wrote an open letter complaining that Mr Leiter’s table measured reputation, not excellence, and that it was driving good students away from middle-rank colleges in a race for the top.

Interestingly, seven of Mr Leiter’s 12 distinguished contributors to “The Future of Philosophy” are on his advisory board. None of them signed the letter of complaint. Who said philosophy was out of touch with the world?

Before commenting on some of the dishonest innuendo in the second paragraph, here is the letter I’ve sent to The Economist regarding the smear in the final paragraph:

Your reviewer (May 19 on-line, May 21 print issue) of my collection The Future for Philosophy insults, gratuitously, the contributors to the volume, and me as the editor, by implying that the Wykeham Professor of Logic at Oxford, senior professors at Princeton, MIT, Brown, Columbia, LSE, and elsewhere, and assorted Fellows of the American, Australian, British, and Canadian Academies were invited to contribute to the book not because they are internationally recognized leaders in their areas of philosophy, but because they did not sign a letter protesting my on-line guide to graduate study in philosophy.  (Your reviewer concluded the review by noting that "seven of Mr. Leiter’s 12 distinguished contributors…are on [the] advisory board [of the on-line guide].  None of them signed the letter of complaint.")

Of the 287 professional philosophers (out of some 13,000) who signed that letter, perhaps two dozen are as distinguished as the contributors to this volume.  Several of those two dozen were, in fact, invited to contribute to the volume, but–like a half-dozen other prominent philosophers who were solicited–declined the invitation, or made tentative commitments, and then withdrew. Simple fact-checking by your snide, but lazy, reviewer would have prevented this irresponsible insult to the eminent philosophers who contributed to the volume.

But what is really stunning–and I don’t need to persuade any of my philosophy readers on this point, I know–is the suggestion that, for example, Julia Annas was asked to write on ancient philosophy, or Alvin Goldman was asked to write on epistemology, or Timothy Williamson was asked to write on philosophy of language and philosophical logic, because each is a member of the PGR Advisory Board.  Obviously, no one would have thought to invite these philosophers–has anyone even heard of them?–to write on these topics absent another minor professional connection.  (A note of clarification about the preceding sarcasm for the benefit of my non-philosophy readers:  it is utterly uncontroversial that philosophers like Annas, Goldman, and Williamson, among others, are among the small handful of absolutely preeminent figures of their generation in their areas of philosophy, and they are known to all students of philosophy, both those in their subfields and those outside them.)

The editor of the collection, Brian Leiter, makes a plea for three thinkers whom the analytical tradition tends to neglect or dismiss: Marx, Nietzsche and Freud

Two years ago close on 300, including some from top-ranked New York University and Rutgers, wrote an open letter complaining…

contains not only a factual error (it was over three years ago), but a brazen piece of misleading innuendo, suggesting that even faculty at top departments like NYU and Rutgers object to the PGR.  What was the factual basis for saying "some"?  No regular faculty at Rutgers signed the letter, but a fellow on a temporary appointment did (he is no longer there).  And only one regular faculty member at NYU signed the letter (poor Tom Nagel, of course).  That’s "some" level of concern from highly ranked departments.