A. C. Grayling's latest philosophical offering begins with analysis of answers given in antiquity to what he calls the 'Socratic Question', i.e.,'How should I live my life?'
I suspect Grayling's hostility to religion rather distorts his explanation for why these ancient ideas represent the latest (and most sophisticated) secular thinking on answering that question. Modern secular philosophy in the West just did not focus on how I - personally - should live. Why not? Most likely secularists in modern times assumed that if we rationalised science, government, knowledge, health, etc., people would end up living better anyway. (There were others who disagreed, but many of those expected society to need religion anyway.) Moreover, the modern secularists actually followed their ancient predecessors' belief that applying reason would lead to a good life. That in turn led to following the Stoics' interest in logic; that is, the principles and rules for reasoned thought and argument.
But nowadays we just don't have that modern secular confidence any more. I suggest that is why some, like Grayling, are looking back to Socrates and his successors in the ancient past. I actually agree with Grayling about the importance of friendship - and that any sort of love flourishes better with friendship in the mix. But friendship was already very difficult even before we got hooked on smartphones. Most of us just don't have the time for friendship.
Moreover, the smartphone conundrum illustrates why philosophy will still be about something other than how we should live. For instance, Jonathan Haidt (The Anxious Generation) relies on sociology and psychology rather than philosophy. This is typical, even mindfulness is nowadays a matter of scientific investigation for health benefits for all its Buddhist origins.