Structure of recent philosophy (2017)

I think for a field like philosophy, which is composed of a bunch of relative silos (some within broader silos like the divide between analytic and continental philosophy as well as others like pragmatism and many sets of non-Euro/Anglo regional philosophy traditions), snowball-sampling isn't really appropriate to gather the "structure of recent philosophy". However, it is a cool look at _parts_ of the current analytic philosophy landscape, and I'm with the other commenters that the aesthetics are on point.

&gt;While the most prolific authors can not always be understood to have shaped the field in a deep fashion, they anchor the clusters in more recent debates, and give me an opportunity to mention more women in the graphic.<p>What a strange non-sequitur.<p>The clusters look strange to me as well - I don’t see any expected names aside from Plato and Aristotle for classics.<p>The choice of embedding a first-person narrative into the poster is also quite strange.

I can’t speak to any of the philosophical content, but the design and layout of poster itself is absolutely beautiful, in my opinion.<p>It has the feel of a 16th-century world map with a modern twist.

Where is Popper? He should be in philosophy of science, but why is the cluster for &quot;reactions to popper&quot; not closer to philosophy of science?

Can someone explain me what sort of philosophical research is undertaken in areas such as &quot;math&quot;, &quot;set theory&quot;, &quot;quantum physics&quot; or &quot;spacetime&quot;, or &quot;recursion theory&quot;. Wouldn&#x27;t a person researching that be a mathematician&#x2F;physicist?

American pragmatism (Richard Rorty) got snuffed.

&gt; Note the position of the point on the x&#x2F;y axis is meaningless - only the proximity matters. Only the relation of the point to each other can be interpreted.<p>I don&#x27;t understand the algorithm used to interpret the relations, but judging by Marxism between positioned between Math Logic, Philosophy of Biology, Theory of Science and Recursion Theory, I doubt its usefulness.