In the NYT. Also, an important correction below the essay on a factoid that appears in too many articles to count:
An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the origin of the word “anthropocene.” The term was not coined in 2002 by Paul Crutzen; it has been in use since the 1980s, and was introduced into scientific discussion by Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer in 2000.
Here is his summary:
In sum, the appearance of Michel’s Ricoeur et ses contemporains in English translation is a welcome event. While I wish Michel had done a bit more to address the lingering suspicion aboutRicoeur’s “conservative” style, the slim volume is crammed full of argumentative “bite” in defense of its two central claims. Because it has been written in clear and plain prose, it has much to offer anyone interested in contemporary post-structuralism, from the novice to the professional. It offers a great deal to consider regarding the fundamental issues of philosophy on meaning, identity, ethics and justice, even (perhaps especially) for those who are unlikely to persuaded by its central contentions.
With introductory essays on Kristeva and others: Philosophy Now | a magazine of ideas.
There’s a discussion at Daily Nous, with links to where this has been a question. The emphasis is on how phenomenology has been epistemologically or ontologically productive, but it’s of course been politically important–recall Sartre’s ’50 writings, Fanon’s work, up to current work by Alia Al-Saji and many others.