Skip to content
Sign in
Artwork for Philosophy Playdate
Society & CulturePhilosophy

Philosophy Playdate

Clever Make Funny Productions Ltd

Children's impossible questions addressed by the greatest minds in philosophy. With jokes.

Hosted by philosopher Christabel Cane and comedian Steve Cross.

Play
Open in
  • 29 episodes
  • weekly
  • Avg 1 hr 5 min
  • English

Episodes 29

NewestOldestLongest
All20Unplayed20In progress0Played0
Counted on this page — what you have heard stays on this device, so it is not something the list can be paged by.
  • S1 · E32
    Monday · 36 min

    Episode 32 - "Why do people keep secrets?"

    This week, Christabel comes back (with a vengeance) to have another jab at Immanuel Kant as she and Steve set about answering Steve’s daughter’s question “Why do people keep secrets?” Steve rebuts Christabel’s accusation of being a Kant apologist (but does accept that there are some secrets – like, for instance, the exact cost of the very expensive guitar they might have purchased – that shouldn’t see the light of day). Christabel surveys Cicero’s and Aristotle’s conceptions of loyalty, and the duties of fidelity we might owe to our friends. The duo then move on to what Michel Foucault described as the 18th Century rejection of political opacity, and one of its thought leaders, Jeremy Bentham. UCL’s corpse mascot was a complicated man: he described transparency as ‘antiseptic’, but he also thought that some degree of military secrecy could be justified on utilitarian grounds. Christabel explores Sissela Bok’s critique of this picture, and Steve lets us in on what we’re likely to find in a nuclear submarine’s safe at the very bottom of the sea. Finally, our hosts take a look at the secrets that the gods might keep from us. Christabel points out that myths involving divine secret names can be found across a range of different cultures, paying particular attention to initial reluctance that both Yahweh and Amun-Ra exhibited before disclosing their names to Moses and Isis. Steve points out that both keeping and learning secrets can be a double-edged sword (or more appropriately, kitchen knife). So can you keep a secret? Because we think you’ll want to hear this… Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Find Christabel at https://christabelcane.com/ Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • S1 · E31
    September 28 · 51 min

    Episode 31 - "Is dobbing bad?"

    In this episode, Steve and Christabel answer Steve’s son’s question “Is dobbing bad?” To get the skinny on snitching, Christabel revisits friend of the podcast, Immanuel Kant. She also draws on the Kantian scholarship of Helga Varden, Mary J. Gregor, James Mahon and Annette Baier (not to name names). We learn about the sneaky trick the father of deontology played on King Frederick William II, Steve tells us of his own real-life ‘murderer at the door’ case, and Christabel expresses her great relief at the fact that Kant remained a lifelong bachelor. The duo then drop in on ancient China get the straight dope on the Confucian conception of dobbing. They find out what Confucius thought of sheep rustling, and what Mencius – the second sage of Confucianism – thought it was permissible to do to get your dad out of a bind. They survey Liu Qingping’s critical approach to Confucian emphasis on the virtue of filial piety, and William Sin’s ‘liberal’ reading of these philosophers. In the process Steve reveals the link between esoteric philosophy and Ted Baker’s corporate management strategy, Christabel relays what Pierre Ladot thought about Socratic dialogue, and we are made privy to some genius-level medical marketing. So go ahead and give it a listen. But if anyone asks, you didn’t learn anything from us… Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Find Christabel at https://christabelcane.com/ Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • S1 · E30
    September 21 · 46 min

    Episode 30 - "Is infinity a number?"

    This week, Steve and Christabel answer Mylo’s question: ‘Is infinity a number?’ They enlist the help of the Milesians; Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes (who were Presocratic philosophers, and NOT Pokémon) and long-serving friend of the podcast Heraclitus. Unfortunately Pythagoras comes along and spoils the fun with his weirdly loaded takes on infinity (and women, rectangles and even numbers) and Aristotle banishes Zeno’s concept of the infinitesimally small to the realm of merely hypothetical mathematics. Steve reveals why Pythagoras feared the eternal, and Christabel draws on the work of Annemarrie Schimmel, Elaine Howes, Bill Rosenthal and Rudy Rucker to conjecture that this ancient prejudice against the concept of infinity might have just been weak men expressing their misogyny all along. Steve takes this opportunity to inform other strong feminists of the proper etiquette to follow when called upon to open tightly-lidded jars for friends. Christabel quietly reflects on the fact no one has ever solicited her with such a request. But if the Pythagoreans were so offended by the infinite, then they shouldn’t have offered such enjoyable proofs of its existence: next up is Archytas of Tarentum (and his philosophical reflections on poking sticks into places they don’t belong). Archytas’ paradoxical conception of The Endless Void is compared with Margret Cavendish’s views on the matter, and Steve recounts a conversation with his son about the size of the universe that Christabel suspects these philosophers would have loved to butt in on. The episode wraps up on a more practical note with Brian Rotman’s concerns about the implications of infinitude for embodied counters, and Penelope Maddy’s observations as tohow children learn to construct both long numbers and long sentences. But the close of the episode serves as proof that all finite things must come to an end – until next week, that is! Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Find Christabel at https://christabelcane.com/ Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • S1 · E29
    September 14 · 59 min

    Episode 29 - "Are numbers real?"

    Steve and Christabel venture forth from Plato’s cave on this week’s quest, which is to find out whether numbers are real. On the way, Christabel learns a surprising amount about football, Steve confesses to some light Twitter fraud, and we all learn how a cult leader should choose their favourite numbers. The episode begins in Ancient Greece with Pythagorean mathematician, astronomer and cosmologist (who was definitely NOT an extraterrestrial) Theano of Croton, and with her golden ratio and her theorem of the harmony of numbers. Steve points out that according to his extensive knowledge of Numberblocks lore, the relationships between the number characters is sometimes anything but harmonious. Christabel compares mathematical Platonism with Aristotle’s extensional account of numbers with particular reference to Joan Kung’s analysis of The Third Man Argument. The duo then skip forward to the mid-sixties and to Linda Wetzel’s critique of Paul Benaceraf’s structuralist take on numbers. The episode ends on Penelope Maddy’s metametaphysical stance that questioning the reality of numbers is beside the point. So long as we can agree on facts like ‘two plus two equals four’ it doesn’t really matter whether these numbers are concretely real, ghostly abstract objects, or convenient fictions. Christabel concludes that even if she finds it hard to walk away from metaphysical puzzles like these, rejecting the question is an extremely chic position to take. Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Find Christabel at https://christabelcane.com/ Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • S1 · E28
    September 7 · 53 min

    Episode 28 - "Are horses important to the world? Part 2"

    Ready to get back in the saddle? Good! Because it’s part 2 of Steve and Christabel’s double-episode extravaganza answering Lowen’s question “Are horses important to the world?” In this second offering, Christabel expounds upon the symbolic significance of horses within ancient metaphysics. The duo begin in ancient India with the Rigveda, the oldest written work in the Vedic tradition. She reveals the unfortunate position wild stallions held within ritual sacrifice, and tells us what the Daoists agreed that metaphysicians and butchers have in common. Ever the champion of vegetarianism, Steve offers some parallel meat-free examples of his own. Our hosts then engage in some microcosm-macrocosm reasoning with Thales of Miletus, Hippocrates, and the authors of the Upanishads. Steve entertains the Stoic’s idea that tidal patterns are the Earth breathing in and out, but he stops short of endorsing the analogy of the cosmic horse (and the restorative powers of its seed – which can apparently be identified with the ancient Indian drink of soma). Steve takes this opportunity to wax lyrical about Chocomel, the soma of his household. This is a welcome palate cleanser for all. But Christabel doesn’t let us get too comfortable. She launches into an analysis of charioteer analogies, the first of which being Plato’s chariot-based symbolism within his depiction of lust within the Phaedrus. We learn some tips about what NOT to say to the object of your affections, and move swiftly on. Steve alludes to the time that he disproved heterosexual intercourse using magnets, and launches into a tirade against Channel 4. The second charioteer analogy comes from the Sāṅkhya tradition, and it explains the distinction between self (or puruṣa) and nature (or prakṛti). Thus ends our round trip across equine philosophy right back where we started in ancient India. Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com and watch him disprove magnetism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJMHzesJSgo Find Christabel at https://christabelcane.com/ Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • S1 · E27
    August 31 · 35 min

    Episode 27 - "Are horses important to the world? Part 1"

    This fortnight, Steve and Christabel embark on a double-episode stint to answer Lowen’s question, “Are horses important to the world?” This is part 1, and it’s jam-packed fuller with equine content than a Findus lasagne. The duo start off in Turin in 1889 to bear witness to Nietzsche’s last cogent conversation (it was admittedly a little one-sided, given that his final interlocutor was a poor cab-driver’s horse). Christabel dabbles in a little chaos theory, and Steve lets us in on how to procure Arthur Morgan the most badass steed in Red Dead Redemption II. They then take a quick pit stop in 479–221 B.C.E. China to check in on the ‘School of Names’ philosophers. Gongsun Long is of particular interest, as is his famous (and maddeningly enigmatic) claim that “White horse is not horse”. Steve takes us back to elementary school for a lesson on colour mixing for pigments versus lights, and then treats us to an infinitely superior mnemonic for recalling the planets in our solar system. The episode closes in ancient Greece, and with the centuries-old logic joke that was tragically left out of Christopher Nolan’s adaption of The Odyssey. Steve points out that we shouldn’t be too disappointed, as the movie does deliver an Ithacan Batman – Spiderman crossover (reminiscent of a certain early YouTube viral classic). Our hosts grapple with cyclopes, Pegasi, alicorns and talking donkeys, but will they definitively answer Lowen’s question? Tune in next week for part 2! Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Find Christabel at https://christabelcane.com/ Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • S1 · E26
    August 24 · 1 hr 21 min

    Episode 26 - "What would it be like to live forever?"

    This week, Steve and Christabel are joined by the incomparable philosopher, sci-fi aficionado and Plato stan Saloni de Souza to answer what it would be like to live forever. Saloni compares the different types of immortality we associate with various entities including superheroes,Jonathan Swift's Struldbrugs, and even with Liverpudlians. Steve informs us of the kind of eternal life introduced by the ThunderCats (as provided to Mumm-Ra by the Ancient Spirits of Evil), and Christabel takes the opportunity to talk a little too much about Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Twilight’s Edward Cullen. But should we even care about the quality-of-life immortal beings should expect, given that life’s only certainty is death (and taxes)? Surprisingly enough, this view isn’t supported by some interpretations of quantum mechanics; our hosts therefore turn to the topic of quantum immortality. Steve explains decoherence by analogising sets of superposed particles with stand-up comedy patrons, and Christabel relays David Lewis’ ‘quantum torment’ argument. It states that no-collapse theories entail that we might be eternally transported through the branching universe, trapped within bodies that continually degrade, but carry on living. This sets up a discussion with Saloni into the hidden (and not-so hidden) ableism of the immortality debate, and the ableist assumptions that build up around figures like Daredevil and the X-Men. The trio go on to discuss their own near-death experiences: we learn that Saloni and Christabel need to develop their peripheral awareness near motor vehicles, and Steve regales us with his roadside celebrity almost-encounters. Christabel informs us that she fears death about as much as a strongly worded email, and Steve affords us valuable insight into the art of saying ‘no’ at work (and getting away with it). Saloni leaves us with the characteristically sage advice to think of death merely as the ultimate deadline. So don’t leave it until tomorrow to binge this episode, dear listeners! Brobdingnagian-sized thanks to Saloni for joining us (and for being the Platonic ideal of a podcast guest). Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Saloni at https://www.salonidesouza.com/ Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Find Christabel at https://christabelcane.com/ Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • S1 · E25
    August 17 · 1 hr 15 min

    Episode 25 - "Why must we imagine Sisyphus happy?"

    This week, Steve and Christabel are delighted to be joined by composer/ writer/ podcaster/ director/ photographer extraordinaire Ian Bowkett to tackle a question that was technically posed by Steve’s son. Steve relays that whilst returning his children to bed for the umpteenth time that night, he informed them that “one must imagine Sisyphus happy”. Steve’s son asked what this meant, which gave our hosts *just enough* of a plausible excuse to invite their friend and Sisyphus expert Ian to join them for an episode on Albert Camus’ most iconic thought experiment. Ian describes the research he conducted into Greek myth and Stoic philosophy whilst writing ‘Sisyphus: A Rock ’n’ Roll Musical’. He reports that there is no single, coherent account of what happened to the king of Corinth, his Pleiad nymph wife Merope, and the Greek gods he angered: like many stories passed down through oral tradition, there are many overlapping versions to choose from. Ian recounts the task of gently separating and reweaving the myth’s threads to create his own narrative. (This prompts the trio take a moment to consider which parts of The Odyssey Christopher Nolan should have left in his recent film adaptation). Christabel acquaints us with Camus’ absurdist philosophy, his paradoxical stance on Algerian independence, and his legendary fallings-out with the existentialist philosophers and Parisian tastemakers Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir. Steve fills us in on the ultimate Sisyphean task of parenting, and demonstrates a highly-developed sensitivity to the absurd on the topics of football, Pokémon, jazz and dentistry. Massive thanks to Ian for joining us, find his fabulous ‘The Mayor of Musical Theatre’ podcast here: https://shows.acast.com/the-mayor-of-musical-theatre Keep your eyes peeled for tickets to Ian’s new musical ‘Stag Night’, which will be released soon for a December run at the Canal Café Theatre: https://canalcafetheatre.com/ Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Find Christabel at https://christabelcane.com/ Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • August 10 · 1 hr 3 min

    Episode 24 - "Why do people not want to be old?"

    This week Steve and Christabel take a stab at answering why it is that people don’t want to be old. They begin in Ancient Greece with a conversation between Socrates and Cephalus, drawing heavily on Saloni de Souza’s interpretation of Plato’s presentation of old age in this early passage of The Republic. Even in ancient times, it was known that wealth can help mitigate the downsides of the ageing process, so the duo hop over to France to pick up on the more explicitly class-conscious critiques of society’s treatment of the old, as provided by Simone de Beauvoir and Édouard Louis. They (hopefully) skirt Jeff Bezos’ legal team’s notice in their discussion of the plight of Amazon warehouse workers, describing what Joseph Fraccia describes as “the messages that capital writes on the bodies of labourers”. Christabel points to a UCL study led by Paola Zaninotto that found that the wealthiest can expect to live an extra 8-9 years free of disability. She then has a mild existential crisis at the thought that most professional sportspeople her age are considered significantly past their prime. Steve attempts to draw her out of her spiralling by teaching her about football manager culture (and is extremely rude about the good people of Stevenage in the process). The focus of our intrepid hosts remains steadfastly on the continent as conversation turns to Edmund Husserl’s distinction between the natural and the philosophical attitudes. Christabel relays that both Jessie Stanier and Hans-Georg Eilenberger posit that ageism gets sedimented into the natural attitude. Steve proceeds to dunk on the Silicon Valley Tech Bros who spend millions on the junk science that purports to ‘reverse their biological ages’. The episode closes with a commendation of the work that Jessie Stanier and Rosie Poebright put into facilitating intergenerational conversations between LGBTQIA+ Bristolians, and concludes that we should all be following the good example set by the wonderfulqueers of the Southwest. Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Find Christabel at https://christabelcane.com/ Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • S1 · E23
    August 3 · 1 hr 26 min

    Episode 23 - "Why do we save the best for last?"

    This week, Steve and Christabel survey what the philosophers have said about temporal biases that drive behaviours like saving the best for last, ‘swallowing the frog’ and investing for retirement. In the course of these proceedings, Steve informs us of the objectively correct order to consume a roast dinner, and then solves Zeno’s paradox. Christabel tells us of the study conducted by Eugene Caruso, Daniel Gilbert and Timothy Wilson that suggests that human beings become more emotional when thinking about future events, and the duo discuss the possibility that evolution might select for this trait, drawing on the work of Kristie Miller, Paul Horwich, Christopher Suhler, Craig Callender, James Maclaurin and Heather Dyke. Of course, it wouldn’t be rational for us to save the best for the distant future if we weren’t convinced that the person we’ll wake up as tomorrow is truly us. This thought sends our hosts down the rabbit hole of Galen Strawson’s view that persons are episodic, which implies that (much like the careers of Prince, Taylor Swift and David Bowie), selves can be separated into distinct ‘eras’. The duo then dive into a variety of the kinds of biases we might have for pleasurable events to be located in the future, the present, the temporally near and on particular dates. Discussion very briefly stalls as Christabel gets caught up in the question as to whether time is real, but with the help of philosophers J.M.E. McTaggart, Arthur Prior, Sidney Shoemaker and Robin Le Poidevin, our hosts leave these troubled waters and plough on into the last (and, fittingly, best) part of the episode. The final act sees the podcast return to the bread and butter of philosophical thought experiments, which are (of course) demons and torturers. These come courtesy of Christian Tarsney’s revision of Newcomb’s box problem, which calls us to question whether future biases might rub up against other intuitions we might have about how to best behave in your own best interests. Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Find Christabel at https://christabelcane.com/ Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • S1 · E22
    July 27 · 1 hr 20 min

    Episode 22 - "Do animals have different emotions?"

    For the episode this week, Steve and Christabel tackle a question from Steve’s daughter, who asked whether animals have different emotions (to those experienced by human beings). In answering this question, our hosts build on the material covered in episode 13, which wrestles with the immense difficulty of knowing (for certain) what it’s like to be a dog (or indeed, bat). But not to be put off, the duo leaves the clear skies of deductive inference to take a dive into the murky waters of abduction, which is a form of reasoning that finds the best explanation to fit the facts. Steve propels us along with a host of duck-based inference puns. But what are the facts? One kind of evidence for animal emotion might be thought to be the sentimental behaviour that they display. Christabel tells us of her dog’s separation anxiety, and introduces analytic behaviourism, one school of thought spawned by logical positivism. Sensing that the answers provided by this philosophical trend are a little too easily-won, they move onto another kind of evidence – that of neuroscience. They discuss Jaak Panskepp’s seven emotional ‘circuits’ and Christabel addresses the links between Panskepp’s posits and David Lewis’ causal role physicalism. Steve and Christabel then try to figure out if animals not only feel pain and pleasure, but also suffering and joy, drawing on Sean Power’s observation that these more sophisticated emotions plausibly require their subjects to possess temporal concepts. Bertrand Russell and Ludvig Wittgenstein both claim that the capacity to remember is the key to understanding what time is, so our hosts take a look at Ali Boyle’s research into episodic memory in non-human minds. Though perhaps these more sophisticated feelings require a more sophisticated theory; the episode’s last port of call is the work of Lisa Feldman Barrett and her constructivist theory of emotions. Our hosts recognise that when it comes to the question of whether animals feel the same emotions, we may never know. However – as Steve points out – we’re no more certain on this question when it comes to the Danish, either. Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Find Christabel at https://christabelcane.com/ Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • S1 · E21
    July 20 · 1 hr

    Episode 21 - "How many bad guys are there?"

    This week Steve and Christabel answer Huey, who asks “How many bad guys are there?” Christabel responds with an assortment of takes on villainy given by the good, the bad and the ugly of philosophy. We start with the position that ALL the guys are bad, canvassing the pessimistic assessments of human nature offered by Niccolò Machiavelli, Saint Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Hobbes. The milder view that only SOME guys are bad is represented by the Confucian philosophers Mencius and Xunzi, the latter of whom thinks that people should strive to embody the loyalty of the birds, who pair bond for life. Ever the biologist, Steve gestures at the enormous amount of evidence for cheating in the animal kingdom, and the duo move swiftly on. They then discuss a special case of the response that only some guys are bad. This is given by the Stoics, who argue that YOU are the only baddie in your own story. Christabel advances an interpretation of Ayn Rand’s ethics that draws a similar conclusion. Steve points out that Rand’s message of ‘pulling yourself up by your bootstraps’ quite literally physically equates to falling over on your arse. Finally, our hosts consider Nietzsche’s amoralist view that NO guys are bad, because there is no such thing as good and evil. Steve immediately disproves Nietzsche by convincing Christabel that she’s pronouncing ‘gaslighting’ wrongly. Thoroughly confused, the duo end on the agreement that there are probably some bad guys out there in the world, but there certainly aren’t any who listen to Philosophy Playdate. Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • S1 · E20
    July 13 · 1 hr 14 min

    Episode 20 - "Does the Universe explode when I go to sleep?"

    Does the universe explode when I go to sleep? This week, Steve and Christabel try their very best to get to the bottom of what happens to the world when we aren’t directly observing it. Steve reports his daughter’s posit that the world explodes when she falls asleep, only to reform upon her waking back up. Christabel examines how this theory fares against three major ontologies: Cartesian dualism, materialism and the idealism of George Berkeley. Along the way, Christabel struggles to pronounce the word ‘tautologous’, Steve advances a new (and very pigeon-centred) ornithology, and our hosts compile their dream philosopher zombie guestlist for a day trip to Chingford’s model railway. They opt to bring David Lewis, Simone de Beauvoir and David Hume. Walt Disney isn’t invited, as he’s already made the visit. Christabel compares A.J. Ayer’s verification principle to Karl Popper’s falsification principle, and Steve founds the cult of Blorons, which are ubiquitous but unobservable conscious particles. Christabel remarks that this reminds her of the panpsychist theory advanced by noted philosopher and optical manufacturer Baruch Spinoza. Steve wonders if he’d let Spinoza grind his lens. The episode ends with a discussion of the position that Margret Dauler Wilson dubs ‘phenomenal realism’, or the view that we cannot (technically) ever be wrong about the phenomenal character of our own experiences. It’s concluded that though we can’t be sure of much about the external world, two dependable pieces of advice emerge: don’t relax your guard around windows in Prague, and decline any drink offered by Bishop Berkeley, especially if it smells like pine needles. Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • S1 · E19
    July 6 · 1 hr 24 min

    Episode 19 - "What's the difference between knowledge and wisdom?"

    This episode is devoted to finding the difference between knowledge and wisdom (or, as Aristotle might have said, the difference between phronesis and sophia). In the process, Christabel learns a lot about the casting stats of various Dungeons and Dragons classes and Steve lets us in on his narrative theory of Star Trek. According to Steve, the presence of Spock is a necessary condition for any successful spin-off series. This brings Christabel to discuss Oushinar Nath’s theory of ‘epistemic essentialism’, according to which the presence of knowledge is a necessary condition for wisdom. The rival theories of epistemic reductionism (or the view that knowledge is a sufficient condition for wisdom) and epistemic nihilism (which separates knowledge from wisdom entirely) are considered, as is Dennis Whitcomb’s characterisation of Mephistopheles as evil but wise. Steve offers an insightful theological conjecture that demons, like naked mole rats, cannot be judged by human standards; for them, every day is opposite day. Our hosts embrace the psychological profile of wisdom provided by Monkia Ardelt, but raise some doubts for Shih-ying Yang’s and Leonard Jason’s claims that the paradigmatically wise person must maintain a sunny outlook on life. The last part of the episode digs into the question of what true knowledge consists in. We’re introduced to Dharmottara and the Gettier cases, and to the epistemic dangers of counting sheep-shaped rocks. Christabel differentiates between propositional knowledge, or ‘knowing-that’, and procedural knowledge, or ‘know-how’. Steve presents us with some excellent examples of the latter, advising us both on how to construct the perfect pub quiz and on the best way to avoid being accosted by street epistemologists. By the end of the episode, we certainly know more, but are we any the wiser? Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • S1 · E18
    June 28 · 1 hr 5 min

    Episode 18 - "Why don't we eat meat?"

    This week, our hosts tackle a question from Steve’s kids as to why in their house, they’re vegetarian. Steve tells us that he doesn’t eat, buy or prepare meat for environmental reasons, reminiscing about a global warming meetup he’d attended: harrowing reports as to the ecological damage being done by the meat industry were bandied about, only to be followed by all-beef conference dinners. Christabel spends the episode laying out a different kind of carnivorous cognitive dissonance, and focuses on the ethics of eating animals with sentience. She starts with canvassing consequentialism, first recapping Shelly Kagan’s utilitarian calculus for ascertaining a meat-eater’s guilt. Mark Budolfson’s reply is considered, as is the unfortunate consequence that blue whales might turn out to be the most ethical animal to consume, if Kagan’s account is taken to its logical extreme. Leslie Stephen’s and Roger Scruton’s arguments are held up as examples of the ‘diner’s defence’: a consequentialist-flavoured line of reasoning that animals should be grateful to be eaten, as their place in the food chain ensures their existence in the first place. This conclusion takes quite a pummelling from Tatjana Višak, Harry Salt and Karri Heikenen. Steve tells us of the warrior ancestry of the modern broiler chicken, and Christabel rounds off the consequentialist part of the episode by bringing up sentientist Peter Singer, and UCL’s resident mummy Jeremy Bentham. At a time before his (un)death, Bentham asked of animals: "The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor, 'Can they talk?' but, 'Can they suffer?'" The duo briefly discuss deontological responses to the meat-eating question, and the unexpectedly fraught task of revising Immanuel Kant’s surprising views on animal torture. Our hosts eventually settle on Roslind Hursthouse’s virtue ethicist analysis of meat-eating, and Steve comes to the (entirely unbiased) conclusion that achieving the eudaemon life of flourishing involves being a vegetarian father of twins. Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • S1 · E17
    June 22 · 1 hr 14 min

    Episode 17 - "Should I pick this flower?"

    In this episode, Steve and Christabel discuss environmental ethics, prompted by Steve’s daughter asking if she should pick a flower she found growing by the roadside. Our hosts use Immanuel Kant’s formula of the universal law to provide both a full moral accounting of London bus stops, and a rigorous philosophical defence of using the woods as a toilet. In the course of making these invaluable contributions to the cannon of Western thought, they survey Peter Singer’s sentientism, Kenneth Goodpaster’s biocentricism and Aldo Leopold’s ecocentricism. Steve professes not to be a naked mole rat expert, but follows his denial with a deluge of intriguing facts about the animal. The duo get down with deontological defences of disallowing deforestation, following their discussion of Julia Nefsky’s critique of Shelly Kagan’s consequentialist approach to collective action problems. Steve narrowly avoids a tragedy of the commons, and provides some sound advice for those at risk of suffering the uncommon tragedy of contracting brain worms (which is to cook your bear kebabs well done). Our hosts then find out what links President Franklin D. Roosevelt and William Morris (it might be sneaking off for a solo moment in the woods). The villains of the episode are Derek Parfit’s 1,000 imperceptible torturers, the Boy Scouts, and the utilitarians who refuse to condemn the Nazi bomb technicians who unintentionally created wildlife sanctuaries (like Walthamstow’s Bomb Crater Pond). The heroes, on the other hand, are Michael Nelson and Holmes Rolston, for their complimentary styles of pro-wilderness advocacy. An honourable mention goes out to Henry David Thoreau’s long-sufferring mother, and to the panspermic rock that just might have bought a living environment to Earth in the first place. Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • S1 · E16
    June 15 · 1 hr 16 min

    Episode 16 - "Is Lego Batman real Batman?" with MJ Hibbett

    Is Lego Batman the real Batman? This week, Steve and Christabel enlist the help of writer, podcaster, musician and fabulously knowledgeable comic book nerd Dr MJ Hibbett to answer ‘Is Lego Batman the real Batman?’. Our hosts draw on Mark’s doctoral research into how to track characters whose narratives span multiple retellings, asking whether we can ever identify individuals across depictions of them within novels, films, comic books and TV. The trio discuss a range of transmedia characters, from protagonists like The Flash, Spider-man and Superman, to antagonists like Dr Doom, Judge Dredd and the father of the original Dennis the Menace. Mark reveals the surprisingly wholesome evolution of Dennis the Menace and Minnie the Minx over three generations, and Steve (ever the contrarian) informs us that he was always more into Whizzer and Chips. Christabel draws comparisons between the fictional worlds created by artists and the possible worlds of David Lewis. She asks whether we should conceive of the fictional multiverses posited within intellectual properties like Marvel, DC Comics or Rick & Morty as spatio-temporally separated worlds, or as more like the parallel universes we find in Everettian interpretations of quantum mechanics. Steve tells us how to distinguish between the Watsonian and Doylist frameworks for literary analysis, and Christabel learns in real time that Dr House is the medical reincarnation of Sherlock Holmes. Mark poses the question as to whether The Great Mouse Detective is a true retelling of Holmes’ story, and Christabel poses a metaphysical problem for supposing that this is so. She explains that according to Saul Kripke’s accounting of modal metaphysics, names ‘rigidly designate’ their owners across all possible worlds. This implies that Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock is identical with Enola Holmes’ brother, which generates a philosophical problem known as ‘the problem of accidental intrinsics’. In the end, very little is concretely established, other than a commitment to the plural of Spider-man being ‘Spiders-men’. Thanks so much to Mark for sharing his multiversal expertise with us! You can find Mark at https://www.mjhibbett.co.uk/doom/data.php And Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • S1 · E15
    June 8 · 1 hr 8 min

    Episode 15 - "Why do Accidents Happen?"

    In this episode, Christabel and Steve frolic amongst the infinite plurality of possible worlds. Christabel explains that accidents are things that didn’t have to be the case; they only happen in SOME possible worlds. Much discussion of the ‘Into the Spiderverse’ movies and the parallel universes of the Superman comics ensues, and Steve treats us into a staggeringly detailed deep dive into which day the Earth was blown up in Douglas Adams’ ‘The Hitchicker’s Guide to the Galaxy’ (for the full accounting, please see Steve’s set here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yufv5dfTgQ4). But are possible worlds real? Our hosts survey a selection of answers, ranging from David Lewis’ full-throated endorsement of concrete non-actual worlds, to the ersatz worlder’s denial, and the modal fictionalist’s equivocation. Modal fictionalists say that events happen in merely possible worlds in the same way that they do in works of literature, (which is to say, they kinda happen, they kinda don’t). Christabel brings in some problems for the possible worlds account of essences based on Kit Fine’s criticisms, but she leaves us with some plausible solutions provided by Ruth Barcan Marcus that were recently highlighted by Jessica Leech. The duo return to an ancient disagreement between Plato and Aristotle about the nature of properties. Christabel suggests that David Lewis’ radical modal realism about possible worlds might be used to settle this dispute once and for all. However, she admits both that this doesn’t get us any closer to distinguishing between the properties like ‘triangular’ and ‘trilateral’, and that (as Steve points out) her hero might well have been using the word ‘cordate’ incorrectly because he misheard it as 'chordate'. Christabel then takes us to her two warehouses full of hypothetical sacks to respond to a criticism raised by Ethan Millar-Virkutis, and the episode wraps up with a foray into the impossible worlds of Daniel Nolan and Mark Jago. Our hosts end on two conclusions. The first is that in the vast preponderance of possibilities, accidents are inescapable. The second is that any snub-nosed man is worth a second look if you encounter him at one of Plato’s sex parties. Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • S1 · E14
    June 1 · 59 min

    Episode 14 - "What makes a good leader?"

    This week, our hosts ransack the bookshelf of the prototypical edgy teenager to answer ‘What makes a good leader?’. Steve and Christabel start off strong with the classics: Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, Thomas Hobbes’ The Leviathan and Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. They take a quick detour into Ludvig Wittgenstein’s theory of games, stopping briefly to consider whether a llama might rightly identify themselves as a unicorn. Later, the duo dive into Maria Kli’s research into the political philosophy of modernity, and consider the truism that a philosopher’s politics often tells you more about their own view of human nature than about how to rule over people. With this in mind, Christabel introduces some philosophers who seem to have held more optimistic views of humanity. Among these are Mencius, the second sage of Confucianism, Zengzi, a disciple of Confucius, and the Neo-Confucians, who held that true kings create the social conditions for their citizens to cultivate their virtues and to better their moral dispositions. Steve offers helpful comparisons against the leadership styles of some of his favourite football managers. Christabel then introduces the controversial Confucius scholarship of Loubna El Amine and the ideal type theory of Max Weber, stopping off to consult some Platonic theory of statecraft along the way. Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

  • S1 · E13
    May 25 · 1 hr 8 min

    Episode 13 - "What's it like to be a dog?"

    This week, Steve and Christabel respond to Max, who asks ‘What is it like to be a dog?’ Christabel tells us of Thomas Nagel’s seminal paper ‘What is it like to be a bat?’ and his sceptical answer. This leads discussion to David Hume’s observations as to the limitations of imagination, and to Frank Jackson’s ‘Mary the super scientist’ thought experiment. Steve learns about the nature of qualia (which we learn isn’t just the name of the hamster Christabel kept as an undergraduate) and informs us how to control for mentos variability under experimental conditions. For reasons best known to herself, Christabel explains how toasters work. The duo then tackle Gregory Berns’ rebuttal of Nagel’s claim that we can’t know what it’s like to be a bat, which he bases on his extensive collection of MRI scans of dog brains. Steve points out that Berns is making a rookie mistake; he’s scanned the wrong mammal. Our hosts settle on the strategy of abduction: perhaps it’s impossible to know EXACTLY what it’s like to be anyone other than yourself, but we can use inference to the best explanation to guide us towards a best-guess approximation of how the subjective experiences of others feel to them. They end with a discussion of the work of Ali Boyle and Johnathan Birch on animal sentience, noting some chilling experimental data gathered about the empathetic capacities of rats. Email us the impossible questions children ask you at philosophyplaydate@gmail.com Find Steve at https://drstevecross.squarespace.com Philosophy Playdate theme by Piers Cane

Showing 1–20 of 29 episodes