The book begins with an erroneous quote, supposedly from Plato's Republic. However, the sentiments behind the quote actually appear in Plato's longer and last dialogue "Laws" (Nomoi). The quote is also different, although some of the original sentiment is condensed the "quote".
Here is the part from Laws
" Let this, then, be our law about foreign travel and the reception of strangers:—No one shall be allowed to leave the country who is under forty years of age—of course military service abroad is not included in this regulation—and no one at all except in a public capacity"
And then there is an interesting part later in the section about how these people who do travel need to report to a council.
"This is the assembly to which the visitor of foreign countries shall come and tell anything which he has heard from others in the course of his travels, or which he has himself observed. If he be made neither better nor worse, let him at least be praised for his zeal; and let him receive still more praise, and special honour after death, if he be improved. But if he be deteriorated by his travels, let him be prohibited from speaking to any one; and if he submit, he may live as a private individual: but if he be convicted of attempting to make innovations in education and the laws, let him die"
I think there are too many quotes at the beginning of the book - some of them did stand out like the garbled Plato one and Thomas Palmer's quote from 1606, which furthered this line of thought. But the others seemed superfluous.
Very unfocused first chapter - the autobiographical aspects don’t add anything of value to the narrative. There are a few interesting quotes, but they don’t germinate into a proper thesis, or set of central premises, which the author then unpacks. Instead they seem to be thrown at the reader entirely at random, with the odd bit of author story as pillow narrative. The chapter title, which promises to explore the question: 'why do philosophers care about travel?', just fails to engage with such a huge amount of material that is available, that would have started to properly unpack this question.
Chapter two has some good reflections on map making, referring to a journal article by Brian Harley (1989) titled, ‘Deconstructing the Map’, which describes how maps are rhetorical devices - forms of power and social control. Maps can centre specific countries, or continents and diminish the importance of others. They can minimise entire terrains, or distort how things actually are - the book refers to a NY article that Harley mentions about the Soviet Union engaging in deliberate subterfuge with their maps - with all of them being inaccurate on purpose due to fears of foreign bombs and invasion.
I also enjoyed this quote
“Researchers have investigated the placement of borders alongside disputed territories on Google Maps. They have shown that the location of these borders jumps, depending on your web servers’ location. For example, on Russian servers, Google Maps shows disputed territory in Crimea as Russian rather than Ukrainian”
But, the reference for it was not great and I couldn't get a clear sense where it was from - except Durham's website.