Philosophy Playdate

Clever Make Funny Productions Ltd
  • 0.0 (0)
  • Philosophy
  • Updated Weekly

Children's impossible questions addressed by the greatest minds in philosophy. With jokes. Hosted by philosopher Christabel Cane and comedian Steve Cross.

  1. 5d ago

    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

  2. Jul 20

    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

  3. Jul 13

    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

  4. Jul 6

    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

  5. Jun 28

    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

  6. Jun 22

    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

  7. Jun 15

    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

  8. Jun 8

    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

See All (22)

About

Children's impossible questions addressed by the greatest minds in philosophy. With jokes. Hosted by philosopher Christabel Cane and comedian Steve Cross.

Information

  • Creator
    Clever Make Funny Productions Ltd
  • Years Active
    2026
  • Episodes
    22
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © Clever Make Funny Productions Ltd
  • Show Website
    Philosophy Playdate

You Might Also Like