‘...if you learn to think like Peter Cave – with freshness, humour, objectivity and penetration – you will have been amply rewarded.’ :::: Prof. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, University of Notre Dame __________________ Chapter Titles:>>> ___ 1 Lao Tzu: The Way to Tao >>> 2 Sappho: Lover >>> 3 Zeno of Elea: Tortoise Backer, Parmenidean Helper >>> 4 Gadfly: aka ‘Socrates’ >>> 5 Plato: Charioteer, Magnificent Footnote Inspirer – ‘Nobody Does It Better’ >>> 6 Aristotle: Earth-Bound, Walking >>> 7 Epicurus: Gardener, (...) Curing the Soul, Ably Assisted by Lucretius >>> 8 Avicenna: Flying Man, Unifier >>> 9 Descartes: With Princess, With Queen >>> 10 Spinoza: God-Intoxicated Atheist >>> 11 Leibniz: Monad Man >>> 12 Bishop Berkeley, ‘That Paradoxical Irishman’: Immaterialist, Tar-Water Advocate >>> 13 David Hume: The Great Infidel or Le Bon David >>> 14 Kant: Duty Calls, Categorically >>> 15 Schopenhauer: Pessimism With Flute >>> 16 John Stuart Mill: Utility Man, With Harriet, Soul-Mate >>> 17 Søren Kierkegaard: Who? >>> 18 Karl Marx: Hegelian, Freedom-Fighter >>> 19 Lewis Carroll: Curiouser and Curiouser >>> 20 Nietzsche: God-Slaying Jester, Trans-Valuer >>>> 21 Bertrand Russell: Radical, Aristocrat >>> 22 G. E. Moore: Common-Sense Defender, Bloomsbury’s Sage >>> 23 Heidegger: Hyphenater >>> 24 Jean-Paul Sartre: Existentialist, Novelist, French >>> 25 Simone Weil: Refuser and Would-Be Rescuer >>> 26 Simone de Beauvoir: Situated, Protester, Feminist >>> 27 Ludwig Wittgenstein: Therapist >>> 28 Hannah Arendt: Controversialist, Journalist? >>> 29 Iris Murdoch: Attender >>> 30 Samuel Beckett: Not I >>>. (shrink)

Philosophy, the ?love of wisdom”, is the product of our endless fascination and curiosity about the world ? the child of wonder.

How do you know that you exist? What does it mean to have a future? Are you the same thing as your brain? What does it mean to be free? How can you know what knowledge is? A woman was advising her anguished friend, 'Be philosophical - then you won't need to think about it.' Well, being philosophical is sometimes taken to mean that you should adopt a resigned attitude to the world - a quiet-ism - but the study that (...) is western philosophy, starting with the ancient Greeks and continuing today in universities, bars and cafes - even bedrooms - is far from quiet. Philosophers think - but not just that, for they think about thinking and they think about how we think about the world, about how we conceive of ourselves, about how we possess a sense of right and wrong, about how we find meaning in life (if we do). How to Think Like a Bat might not help you to think like a bat, but it will certainly help you to think like a philosopher. Smart, witty and engaging, this is a superb introduction to the subject by one of Britain's most engaging philosophical writers. (shrink)

In this witty and mischievous book, philosopher Peter Cave dissects the most controversial disputes today and uses philosophical argument to reveal that many issues are less straightforward than we'd like to believe. Leaving no sacred cow standing, Cave uses ingenious stories and examples to challenge our most strongly held assumptions. Is democracy inherently a good thing? What is the basis of so-called human rights? Is discrimination always bad? Are we morally obliged to accept refugees? In an age of identity (...) politics and so-called 'fake news', this book is an essential resource for reinvigorating genuine public debate - and an entertaining challenge to accepted wisdom. (shrink)

In his short life, Alan Turing (1912-1954) made foundational contributions to philosophy, mathematics, biology, artificial intelligence, and computer science. He, as much as anyone, invented and showed how to program the digital electronic computer. From September, 1939, his work on computation was war-driven and brutally practical. He developed high speed computing devices needed to decipher German Enigma Machine messages to and from U-boats, countering the most serious threat by far to Britain..

This paper praises and criticizes Peter-Paul Verbeek's What Things Do . The four things that Verbeek does well are: remind us of the importance of technological things; bring Karl Jaspers into the conversation on technology; explain how technology "co-shapes" experience by reading Bruno Latour's actor-network theory in light of Don Ihde's post-phenomenology; develop a material aesthetics of design. The three things that Verbeek does not do well are: analyze the material conditions in which things are produced; criticize the (...) social-political design and use context of things; and appreciate how liberal moral-political theory contributes to our evaluation of technology. (shrink)

Technology permeates nearly every aspect of our daily lives. Cars enable us to travel long distances, mobile phones help us to communicate, and medical devices make it possible to detect and cure diseases. But these aids to existence are not simply neutral instruments: they give shape to what we do and how we experience the world. And because technology plays such an active role in shaping our daily actions and decisions, it is crucial, Peter-Paul Verbeek argues, that we (...) consider the moral dimension of technology. _Moralizing Technology_ offers exactly that: an in-depth study of the ethical dilemmas and moral issues surrounding the interaction of humans and technology. Drawing from Heidegger and Foucault, as well as from philosophers of technology such as Don Ihde and Bruno Latour, Peter-Paul Verbeek locates morality not just in the human users of technology but in the interaction between us and our machines. Verbeek cites concrete examples, including some from his own life, and compellingly argues for the morality of _things_. Rich and multifaceted, and sure to be controversial, _Moralizing Technology_ will force us all to consider the virtue of new inventions and to rethink the rightness of the products we use every day. (shrink)

The experiments of the Austrian biologist Paul Kammerer to breed eyes in blind olms is probably one of the most notable manifestations of Lamarckian thinking and research at the beginning of the 20th century. If living in the environment of the dark caves in the Slovenian Kraijna for thousands of years has reduced the eyes of the olms until they nearly disappeared, then is it possible to influence the development in the other direction and speed it up? Will a (...) transformed milieux or media (in a Lamarckian sense) conduct olms to vision, to the mysteries of light? Kammerer's legendary skill in taking care of animals (especially amphibians), the highly modern research environment of an institution unique in whole Europe and America at that time (the Biologische Versuchsanstalt Wien), years of experimental crossings, and, finally, the convergence of biological media and technical media (for example media of development in photography), provided the opportunity for Kammerer to succeed. The olm experiments are part of an elaborate research program of the Viennese Versuchsanstalt and its facilities that assume the environment of animals to be the critical point in developmental, hereditary, and evolutionary research. Theoretically Kammerer's olms ask questions about vision in general and its organ, the eye. (shrink)

The attachment for download here merely references my 5,500-word final and extended article, criticising those who seek to justify Israeli attacks on Gaza. The article is published online by Daily Philosophy, 5th January 2024, link shown below. -/- After a background of facts (probably well-known by readers concerned about the matters), the article examines typical arguments much used in the media as attempts to justify Israel’s determined destruction of Gaza, involving well over twenty thousand Palestinians killed, hundreds of thousands suffering (...) appalling injuries and two million having their lives and livihoods shattered. -/- I expose inconsistencies, poor reasoning and immoralities of those who support Israeli actions. There is a final touch of Kant and Nietzsche - and use of the saying attributed to Jesus: For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? (shrink)

This is an accessible summary - online, The Well - 1st September 2023 - of concerns raised in my book 'The Myths We Live By' and my latest, 'How To Think Like a Philosopher: Scholars, Dreamers and Sages Who Can Teach Us How to Live'. -/- Herewith as PDF.

A brief review of my How To Think Like a Philosopher, drawing attention to the valuable thinking of David Hume and some Scottish connections.

During the past decade, the “script” concept, indicating how technologies prescribe human actions, has acquired a central place in STS. Until now, the concept has mainly functioned in descriptive settings. This article will deploy it in a normative setting. When technologies coshape human actions, they give material answers to the ethical question of how to act. This implies that engineers are doing “ethics by other means”: they materialize morality. The article will explore the implications of this insight for engineering ethics. (...) It first augments the script concept by developing the notion of technological mediation. After this, it investigates how the concept of mediation could be made fruitful for design ethics. It discusses how the ambition to design behaviorinfluencing technologies raises moral questions itself and elaborates two methods for anticipating technological mediation in the design process: performing mediation analyses and using an augmented version of constructive technology assessment. (shrink)

Following the “control dilemma” of Collingridge, influencing technological developments is easy when their implications are not yet manifest, yet once we know these implications, they are difficult to change. This article revisits the Collingridge dilemma in the context of contemporary ethics of technology, when technologies affect both society and the value frameworks we use to evaluate them. Early in its development, we do not know how a technology will affect the value frameworks from which it will be evaluated, while later, (...) when the implications for society and morality are clearer, it is more difficult to guide the development in a desirable direction. Present-day approaches to this dilemma focus on methods to anticipate ethical impacts of a technology, being too speculative to be reliable, or on ethically regulating technological developments, discarding anticipation of the future implications. We present the approach of technological mediation as an alternative that focuses on the dynamics of the interaction between technologies and human values. By investigating online discussions about Google Glass, we examine how people articulate new meanings of the value of privacy. This study of “morality in the making” allows developing a modest and empirically informed form of anticipation. (shrink)

This paper exposes some examples of continuing murky thinking concerning holism. The exposure is a prelude to noting the importance of proximity in causal explanations of illnesses and wounds. The paper then draws attention to how the proximate should not hold exclusive sway regarding what constitutes best nursing treatment and care. The error of excessive preference for proximity is shown to be an error, using as an example the treatment of leg ulcers. One component of holism that can be clearly (...) expressed amounts therefore simply to the claim: resist the error of excessive proximity preference, resist the error of concentrating solely on nearness. It is left open whether there is any further sense to be gleaned from the holistic babble. (shrink)

This article analyzes the moral relevance of technological artifacts and its possible role in ethical theory, by taking the postphenomenological approach that has developed around the work of Don Ihde into the domain of ethics. By elaborating a postphenomenological analysis of the mediating role of ultrasound in moral decisions about abortion, the article argues that technologies embody morality and help to constitute moral subjectivity. This technological mediation of the moral subject is subsequently addressed in terms of Michel Foucault’s ethical position, (...) in which ethics is about actively co-shaping one’s moral subjectivity. Integrating Foucauldian ethics and postphenomenology, the article argues that the technological mediation of moral subjectivity should be at the heart of an ethical approach that takes the moral dimensions of technology seriously. (shrink)

Certain paradoxes set us reeling endlessly. In surprise examination paradoxes, pupils' reasonings lead them to reel between expecting an examination and expecting none. With Newcomb's puzzle, choosers reel between reasoning in favour of choosing just one box and choosing two. The paradoxes demand an answer to what it is rational to believe or do. Highlighting other reelings and puzzles, this paper shows that the paradoxes should come as no surprise. The paradoxes demand an end to our reasoning when the conditions (...) they set ensure no end. They equivocate between, so to speak, reasoning in heaven and reasoning on earth; and, on the conditions set, not even an infinite god could reach a conclusion. (shrink)

Peter Cave gets to grips with maths, God and the meaning of life.

John Stuart Mill was born two hundred years ago, on 20 th May, 1806. He died on 7 th May 1873. Peter Cave brings to life some of the thinking of this outstanding philosopher.

Successful jokes involve incongruities, but not any incongruity will do—not, for example, one as blatantly bare as an explicit instance of the form p.~p. Substitution in such is no secure generator of fun; and stand-up comedians would be lucky to escape with their lives, if—at the Glasgow Empire on a Saturday night—they delivered one-liners such as “She came from Dungeness and not from Dungeness.” Build-up context, alcohol level, and delivery skills—and it is not impossible that any line, even the p.~p (...) instance, could secure some laughs; but laughs alone need indicate no joke. At a level virtually platitudinous, jokes require an incongruity—a tension—between expectations typically aroused by initial words and resultant sabotaging revelations. We could, no doubt, be a species that laughed at every expressed contradiction, yet one for which banana skins, sexual spasms, and implied inconsistencies raised no flicker. Which particular sayings generate incongruities and not mere laughter is no empirical matter, but one of logic, logic taken sufficiently widely to include semantics and pragmatics. These incongruities, with the masking, the movement and unmasking—the teasing, stripping, and exposed sabotage—are to be found within many philosophical paradoxes as well as within jokes. Laying bare the jokes’ mechanisms can help to resolve such paradoxes. Joking matter itself need be no joking matter; and as jokes and paradoxes rely upon veiled incongruities, an all-seeing god would see no joke and meet no paradox. (shrink)

Peter Cave once again takes the reader on a witty, engaging romp through a glorious compendium of philosophical puzzles. With the aid of tall stories, jokes, common sense, and bizarre insights, Cave tackles some of life’s most important questions and introduces the conundrums that will keep you pondering throughout the night. Illustrated with dozens of quirky cartoons, Do Llamas Fall in Love? leaves no stone unturned, covering a smorgasbord of topics including logic, ethics, art, and politics. It will provide (...) a perfect gift for anyone who puzzles about the world! (shrink)

Peter Cave explains why he believes we can and should treat people well, even after they have ceased to exist. We should treat people well; therefore, we should treat dead people well.

Peter Cave reflects on morality and belief in God.

Peter Cave's new book, Can a Robot Be Human? 33 Perplexing Philosophy Puzzles, covers a wide range of perplexities and paradoxes. Here, Peter raises some timely puzzles.

Peter Cave juggles sex and God, Wittgenstein and language, and Kant and his lemons, pointing to some irredeemably paradoxical and perilous aspects of erotic love.

In this fun and entertaining book of puzzles and paradoxes, Peter Cave introduces some of life’s most important questions with tales and tall stories, reasons and arguments, common sense and bizarre conclusions. From speedy tortoises to getting into heaven, paradoxes and puzzles give rise to some of the most exciting problems in philosophy—from logic to ethics and from art to politics. Illustrated with quirky cartoons throughout, Can A Robot Be Human? takes the reader on a taster tour of the (...) most interesting and delightful parts of philosophy. It’s for everyone who puzzles about the world! (shrink)

Who are the Jews? What do they believe? Why is Israel so important to them? What's all this about self-hating Jews? These are just some of the questions that engage a Reform rabbi and a Humanist philosopher in their lively and intriguing conversations. From Antisemitism to Zionism, from animal slaughter kosher-style to the Zeitgeist of Jewish disparaging humour, rabbi Dan Cohn-Sherbok gives us the flavours, traditions and 'feel' of Jewish life and identity enmeshed in the importance of the Holy Land, (...) while philosopher Peter Cave gets him to dig deeper, revealing philosophical perplexities, unsettling questions -- and even Wittgenstein. The book is unique for it challenges unconscious assumptions such as the Jewish conviction that Judaism must survive and that Hitler must not secure a posthumous victory -- as well as widening eyes to searching questions concerning a nation's identity and what justifies territorial rights. Because Jewish humour plays a crucial role in Jewish life, this wide-ranging and thought-provoking exploration includes Jewish jokes and Dan's Jewish cartoons, all designed to add some spice to the dish of what it is like to be a Jew in these modern times. The dialogues introduce the non-Jewish to the Jewish world of argument, anguish and identity -- and will lead Jews to discover some fresh approaches and challenges to their interests and worries. For both Jews and non-Jews, this book casts lights -- with an engaging and accessible tone -- for, clearly, this rabbi and philosopher enjoy the cut and the thrust. (shrink)

“Perfect for aspiring students of philosophy, Cave’s splendidly thought-provoking puzzles are presented with verve, energy, and clarity. Highly recommended...” Adrian Moore, Professor of Philosophy, University of Oxford -/- The 99 puzzles include -/- What makes me, me – and you, you? What is this thing called ‘love’? Do we make the stars? Is ‘no’ the right answer to this question? Do we ever truly act freely? Why save the whale? Does life have a point?

“An elegant and erudite exposé of the hypocrisies and evasions that infect the social and political thinking of our times.” ___ John Cottingham, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of Reading __________________________________________________________________________________________________ -/- What’s so good about democracy? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Is any land rightfully ‘our land’? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ How private are our private lives? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Is ‘equal opportunities’ talk all nonsense? ------------------------------------------------------------ Do free markets set the people free? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patriotism good? Nationalism bad? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- What’s so bad about discrimination? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Are the transgendered (...) right about gender? --------------------------------------------------------------- Does anyone believe in human rights? -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- -/- “With characteristic wit, Cave takes readers on a journey of discovery through a maze of perplexities. This is a profound book — those who survive the voyage will never think about liberal democracy and their lives as they did.” Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Professor Emeritus, Univ. of Wales -/- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- -/- CONTENTS: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___ -/- Prologue: On hiding what we know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -/- 1 What’s so good about democracy? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 How democracy lies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 Freedom and discrimination: burqas, bikinis and Anonymous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> 4 Should we want what we want? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 Lives and luck: can Miss Fortuna be tamed? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 6 The Land of Justice >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 7 Plucking the goose: what’s so bad about taxation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8 ‘This land is our land’ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9 Community identity: nationalism and cosmopolitanism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 10 What’s so good about equal representation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 11 Human duties – oops – human rights >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 Free speech: the Tower of Babel; the Serpent of Silence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 13 Regrets, apologies and past abuses >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 14 ‘Because I’m a woman’: trans identities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 15 Happy Land >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epilogue: In denial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Notes and References >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Acknowledgements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Index> ;>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -/- . (shrink)

Arguing about Judaism differs from other introductions to Judaism. It is unique, not solely in its engaging dialogues between a Reform rabbi and a humanist, atheist philosopher, but also in its presentation of and challenges to the fundamental religious beliefs of the Jewish heritage and their relevance to today's Jewish community. The dialogues contain both Jewish narratives and philosophical responses, with topics ranging from the nature of God to controversies over sexual relations, animal welfare and the environment -- from antisemitism (...) to the state of Israel and Zionism. Although the rabbi and philosopher argue strongly, clearly enjoying the cut and thrust of debate, they do so with sensitivity, charm and respect, revealing the rich intricacies of the Jewish religion and contemporary Jewish life. While essential reading for those studying Judaism and Jewish history, the book aims to stimulate debate more generally amongst Jews and non-Jews, the religious and the atheist -- all those with a general interest in religion and philosophy. (shrink)

Often we have coarsely grained knowledge: for example, we know about how many people are present. In possessing such knowledge, we also have finer grained knowledge of what is not: there certainly is nothing like that number of people here. The combination of such knowledge types, through sorites, generates contradiction and bafflement. This paper seeks to resolve the bafflement: it rejects a Timothy Williamson proposal, introduces muddle numbers and inference gaps, and shows how the different grains of knowledge do not (...) always meet. In so doing, the paper identifies a distinctive first‐person inferring. (shrink)

Humanists acknowledge the absolute finality of death: it is annihilation. One may question whether sense can be made of life after death. Even if sense can be made, one may ask what evidence exists to justify belief that there is any such life. With the rejection of eternal life, and hence any risk of eternal damnation, humanists may argue that there is nothing to fear in death. One could argue against Lucretius that if there were to be the required similarity (...) between pre‐birth and post‐death non‐existence, then he/she should regret the lack of pre‐birth existence rather than overcome unhappiness at the lack of post‐death existence. There are numerous things that matter, and that mattering is not undermined by death as annihilation. Human mortality places a block on eternal life, but not on eternities that may yet give meaning to our lives. (shrink)

New extended edition, 2022 - with two additional chapters - -/- 8. Pan-disasters, pan-deceptions and pandemonium -/- 9. Whither humanism? Whither humanity?