A complete and overall account of ourselves and the world was once the goal of philosophy. But at the outset of the 20th century, Russell initiated analytic philosophy with an attack on overall systems in favour of piecemeal advance. Wittgenstein went further, denying even the possibility of an overall account. While at the close of the century, postmodernism declared the very idea of metaphysics naive. The case against a complete account of the world had seemingly won. But critics argue that from being over we cannot avoid the attempt to frame an overall account of the world. Any account of reality relies on a framework of belief to make sense of whatever is being claimed. We cannot eradicate metaphysics by simply avoiding talking about it.

Will grand philosophical systems make a return, and are they already doing so? Is it possible to navigate the world without an overall framework, and was there one underlying even postmodernism? Or is the idea of a complete account of the world a fantasy, born of hubris and pride?

Post-postmodern philosopher Hilary Lawson, revolutionary Indian philosopher Divya Dwivedi, and idealist philosopher Sebastian Rödl debate grand philosophical systems.