Our series of posts on underappreciated writings of the past 50 years moves to the 2000s.
What works published from 2000-2009 are not as well-known as they should be, or not read as widely as they ought to be, or not adequately recognized for whatever it is you think makes them valuable—their contribution to a philosophical discussion, their opening up of new topics, their inventiveness, their style, etc.?
Again, here is an excerpt from the original post in this series:
A valuable philosophical work may get overlooked because it was published in a lesser-known venue. Or perhaps it was published in a part of the world or in a language that those in the mainstream tend to ignore. Perhaps sociological aspects of the profession concerning dominant writing style preferences or attitudes about the prestige of the author’s institutional affiliations led to its dismissal. Maybe it was ahead of its time, speaking to issues or presenting ideas or arguments the significance of which was only recognized much later. Maybe it was appreciated in its time, but somehow got lost in the crowd of publications since…
It’s not an exact science, of course, judging both the significance of the work and the extent to which it is currently appreciated. I encourage people to err in ways that are more inclusive, as it’s better to hear about something you’ve already heard about than to miss out on hearing about something new (to you) and good.
Name a work you think fits the bill in the comments, and when you do so, please include a line or two about why.
And feel free to add more to the previous posts in the series: