by Ashwin Jayanti.

What is philosophy of technology? And what accounts for the increase in popularity of this field of inquiry? These are the questions that might plague any curious reader, who might presume that this is just another fad in the philosophical trend of associating itself to whatever subject attains center-stage in the minds and lives of the people. The recent surge in interest in philosophizing about technology might eclipse the historical fact that its roots lie much earlier than might be expected. Although technical artefacts have played a central role in thinking through metaphysics ever since Aristotle, philosophy of technology as an explicit field within philosophy has taken much time to bear fruit and mature. In this article, I intend to give a brief outline of the origins and development of philosophy of technology as a philosophical field of inquiry. In doing so, I shall reveal the foundations upon which contemporary philosophers of technology build their thinking and how they distinguish themselves from earlier thinkers on this topic.

What is Philosophy of Technology?

It could be fairly said that any history of philosophy of technology is a record of a series of shifts from (a) techne through Technology (with a capital T) to technical artefacts, (b) a teleological through mechanistic to a deterministic worldview, (c) technologies as tools through technologies as deterministic forces to technologies as co-shaping our worlds, and (d) utopian celebration through dystopian condemnation to a contemporary evaluation of particular technologies on a case by case basis. The common thread that runs through these series of shifts is the realization that technologies are not merely neutral instruments that serve as means to our ends, but actively transform and shape our ends in ways that escape our notice. They contribute to making our world and influence the ways in which we act and interpret it. The grounding maxim of any philosophy of technology could be said to be this: technologies are non-neutral. In highlighting the non-neutral roles played by technologies in the social, scientific, political, and ethical realms, philosophy of technology aims to restore due philosophical importance to the material, embodied, praxical, and normative dimensions of technologies.

Origins of Philosophy of Technology

It is not until the late 19th century that technology explicitly becomes the subject of philosophical reflection. This can be attributed to the significant transformation brought about by advances in science and technology and the consequent social changes ushered in by the industrial revolution. The German philosopher, Ernst Kapp (1808? 1896) is acknowledged to be the first to coin the phrase ‘philosophie der technik,’ German for ‘philosophy of technology’.[i] While Kapp directed his philosophical reflection on the new science of mechanical engineering, it is, however, with his contemporary, Karl Marx (1808? 1883), that technology is shown to have a very significant impact on social transformation. Keeping these two divergent analyses in view, Carl Mitcham, one of the foremost historians of philosophy of technology, has classified philosophy of technology into two camps: engineering philosophy of technology and humanities philosophy of technology. The former is historically prior to the latter in the explicit use of the phrase ‘philosophy of technology’, and it is “an attempt by technologists or engineers to elaborate a technological philosophy.” The latter, on the other hand, “refers to an effort by scholars from the humanities, especially philosophers, to take technology seriously as a theme for disciplined reflection.”[ii]

Mitcham traces the origins of engineering philosophy of technology to “mechanical philosophy,” i.e., to a philosophy that explains the world through the principles of mechanics resulting from the experiments carried out by natural philosophers such as Isaac Newton, George Berkeley, and Robert Boyle. It is thus an internalist and technical conception of technology. Mitcham goes on to list the key representatives of this camp to include (mostly) engineers and technocrats such as Ernst Kapp, Peter Engelmeier (1855?1941), Eberhard Zschimmer (1873?1940), Friedrich Dessauer (1881? 1963), Alfred Espinas (1844? 1922), Jacques Lafitte (1884? 1966), Gilbert Simondon (1923? 1989), Hendrik van Riessen (1911?2000), Egbert Schuurman (1937?) Juan David Garcia Bacca (1901? 1992), Mario Bunge (1919?), and Buckminster Fuller (1895? 1983).[iii]

As opposed to engineering philosophy of technology’s internalist (technical) conception of technology, the humanities philosophy of technology conforms to an externalist (social) conception of technology. Mitcham defines it as “the attempt of religion, poetry, and philosophy to bring non- or transtechnological perspectives to bear on interpreting the meaning of technology.”[iv] In general, philosophical discourse, therefore, has emphasized the humanities philosophy of technology over its engineering counterpart.[v] In the face of modern technological and scientific progress, humanities philosophy of technology developed “as a series of rear-guard attempts to defend the fundamental idea of the primacy of the non-technical.”[vi] Taking their cue from the Romantics’ critique of Enlightenment, humanities philosophers of technology have preoccupied themselves with critiquing the social ills brought about by modern technology. Key representatives of this camp include philosophers such as Karl Jaspers (1883?1969), Gabriel Marcel (1889? 1973), Lewis Mumford (1895? 1988), Jose Ortega y Gasset (1883?1955), Martin Heidegger (1889? 1976), and Jacques Ellul (1889? 1976).

The engineering camp’s technocratic conception of technology has been largely incommensurate with the humanities camp’s romantic conception of technology. Mitcham notes that the tension between the two camps arises out of conflicting judgments: Engineering philosophy of technology seeks to explain the world—both human and non-human—in technological terms, whereas humanities philosophy of technology seeks to understand technology from a non-technological point of view; while the former is technological, the latter is hermeneutic and aimed at a self-understanding of our technological lifeworld from an anthropological and historical perspective;[vii] where the former views technology as instrumental in realizing a utopia where machines would enable us greater freedom, the latter aims to forestall a technocratic dystopia where the human agency has been handed over to machines. In other words, whereas the former celebrates modernity, the latter questions its very basic assumptions. As Andrew Feenberg notes, it is the difference between traditional and modern societies that “will prove an Archimedean point for an original reflection on technology.”[viii]

Philosophy of Technology: From Classical to Contemporary

The contemporary philosophers of technology emerge out of this background. Looking back critically at their predecessors, these philosophers of technology have discerned certain common features in their views on technology. Owing to these family resemblances, their predecessors have been retrospectively and pejoratively classified as belonging to the “classical philosophy of technology.”[ix] Philosophers who are brought under this banner include Martin Heidegger, Lewis Mumford, Jacques Ellul, Hans Jonas, Hannah Arendt, and Ivan Illich, among others. There have been various ways in which classical philosophers of technology have been characterized by their contemporary counterparts. Most of the contemporary works on philosophy of technology begin by showing how their predecessors fall into one or more of certain pejorative categories that close-off other dimensions of human-technology relationships. These characterizations are carried out mainly in order to show the limitations of their predecessors and to show how their own philosophy goes beyond these limitations and offers a more concrete analysis of our technological lifeworld. The contemporary philosophers of technology referred to in the present study read their predecessors in terms of the attention (or the lack thereof) they have directed toward the concrete and empirical manifestations of technologies. They accuse their predecessors of making grand generalizations in talking about technology-with-a-capital-T. This turn to the empirical and concrete analysis of technologies is what separates these philosophers from their predecessors, marking a shift that has come to be known as the ‘empirical turn’ in the philosophy of technology.

Within the scope of this study, the term ‘contemporary philosophers of technology’ refers to those whose work is guided by the empirical approach of turning attention to concrete technologies and their effects on how we experience our lifeworld. These philosophers can be heuristically grouped into two main camps depending upon whether their influences lie within the continental or the analytic traditions within philosophy.  The philosophers of technology on the continental side trace their influences from within phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory, pragmatism, Marxism, feminism, actor-network theory, among others. These philosophers include (but are not limited to) Carl Mitcham, Langdon Winner, Robert C. Scharff, Don Ihde, Hans Achterhuis, Albert Borgmann, Hubert Dreyfus, Peter-Paul Verbeek, Andrew Feenberg, Donna Haraway, Bruno Latour, Robert Rosenberger, etc. On the other hand, the philosophers of technology in the analytic side share a certain commitment to the way in which philosophical problems ought to be addressed. Addressing such issues as the “the character of technological knowledge, the study of design and action, and the status of technical artifacts,” these philosophers carry out a detailed conceptual analysis by taking into account empirical facts concerning the actual processes of engineering problem-solving, design, (mal)function, and use.[x] A representative of such an approach to the study of technical artefacts are philosophers such as Anthonie Meijers, Peter Kroes, Pieter Vermaas, Maarten Franssen, Wybo Houkes, Marc J. de Vries, Joseph C. Pitt, Hans Radder, Philip Brey, etc.[xi]

Most contemporary work on philosophy of technology begins with a characterology—almost always cautionary—of classical philosophy of technology. For example, Carl Mitcham, in his historico-philosophical studies on the phenomenon of technology not only demarcates between engineering and humanities philosophies of technology but also calls attention to three ways in which the relationship between our technical engagements and the way the world is disclosed to us has been understood. These are ancient skepticism (suspicious of technology), Enlightenment optimism (promotion of technology), and Romantic uneasiness (ambiguous about technology).[xii] Don Ihde, the founder of the postphenomenological approach to the study of technology, classifies the history of philosophy of technology into three waves. The first wave is characterized as treating “technology as an overall phenomenon…tended towards dystopian assessments; and most usually saw technology as a threat to the older, traditional forms of culture.” This included Ernst Kapp, Karl Marx, Martin Heidegger, Friedrich Dessauer, Ortega y Gassett, Karl Jaspers, Nicolas Berdyaev, Lewis Mumford, and John Dewey. The second wave comprised of “technology critical philosophers who tended to view technology as a political and cultural threat…[in] an era in which extremes of utopian and dystopian views of technology often prevailed.” This included Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, Jurgen Habermas (making up the Frankfurt School), Jacques Ellul, Ivan Illich, and Hans Jonas. In contrast to the first two waves, the third wave is characterized as being “less dystopian, more pragmatic, pro-democratic…and [taking] an ‘empirical turn’ or a turn to the analyses of concrete technologies…a high sense of careful analysis and thus more concrete than the often abstract and high-altitude metaphysics of the past.”[xiii]

Philip Brey characterizes classical philosophy of technology as dominant between 1920 and 1990, formed by philosophers and humanists belonging to phenomenology, existentialism, hermeneutics, critical theory, theology, and related areas. It included philosophers like Martin Heidegger, Herbert Marcuse, Jacques Ellul, Ivan Illich, Arnold Gehlen, Hans Jonas, Lewis Mumford, and others who critically responded to the technological optimism characterizing the Enlightenment idea of progress. Enlightenment thinkers such as Rene Descartes, Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, and Gottfried Leibniz held on to an optimistic view of technology envisioning that it “would bring humanity control over nature, individual freedom, well-being and affluence.” However, this optimistic view caved under the “negative and destructive nature of technology” owing to the destruction caused by the two World Wars, dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the threat of nuclear obliteration, and alienation of monotonous factory work. This gave way to classical philosophy of technology’s critique of Enlightenment optimism, instead of laying emphasis on the negative and destructive nature of technology as an overpowering force leading to subservience and loss of all traditional values.[xiv]

Hans Achterhuis follows a similar characterization and calls the first-generation philosophers of technology as the classical philosophers of technology. These include thinkers such as Martin Heidegger, Hans Jonas, Jacques Ellul, Lewis Mumford, Hannah Arendt, and Ivan Illich, among others. These classical philosophers of technology “occupied themselves more with the historical and transcendental conditions that made modern technology possible.”[xv] Noting the influence of the classical philosophers of technology on the contemporary, empirically oriented philosophy of technology, Achterhuis credits them as being philosophical pioneers who inverted the traditional and dominant view of technology as applied science and as a merely neutral and instrumental means to an end. He goes on to add that “[t]he most important discovery of classical philosophy of technology is undoubtedly the absolute novelty, within the history of humanity, of the technological approach to reality.”[xvi] Following Ihde’s distinction, it can thus be said that the classical philosophers of technology were responsible for ushering in a shift away from ‘philosophy and technology’ towards a ‘philosophy of technology’.

However, the classical philosophy of technology, in its preoccupation with adopting a transcendental approach that focuses on the conditions of possibility of technology, failed to look at technologies from a concrete, experiential perspective. This accounts for its generalizations (talking of technology-with-a-capital-T) and symptomatic dystopianism. Peter-Paul Verbeek also characterizes classical philosophy of technology along the same lines, accusing them of painting an “excessively gloomy picture of the role of technology is contemporary culture,” making “too abstract and sweeping” judgments, and failing “to connect with the concrete technological practice.”[xvii] Verbeek traces the philosophical roots of classical philosophy of technology to transcendental philosophy of Immanuel Kant wherein the subject of analysis is looked at from the perspective of its conditions of possibility, i.e., that which must be supposed in order for it to be possible. Thus, classical philosophy of technology understood technology on the basis of its conditions of possibility, and in doing so, “[i]t thought backwards…from the actual presence of concrete technological objects in our society to what made them possible.”[xviii] Verbeek refers to such a philosophy of technology arising out of the works of Karl Jaspers and Martin Heidegger. While the existential-phenomenological approach of Jaspers condemns technology for resulting in a loss of authenticity, Heidegger’s (later) hermeneutic phenomenology understands modern technology as a mode of being in which everything in the world is disclosed as a standing reserve, as a raw material for consumption.

With this bird’s eye view, which brings into relief contemporary philosophy of technology, we see that philosophy of technology is not limited to merely waxing ethical about the social ills of technological advances but is a much more philosophically rigorous exploration into questions such as the ontological nature of technical artefacts, the notion of technical function, the nature of engineering sciences and technological knowledge, the role of technological instruments in science, nature of technoscience, technological mediation and its shaping of human–world relations, the normativity of artefacts, material culture, the evolution of technology, information ethics, among other interesting subfields.

Annotated Bibliography

Listed below is just a small sample of the literature within the contemporary philosophy of technology, organized according to different approaches and objects of study.

Introductory textbooks:

These books introduce the reader to the field of contemporary philosophy of technology by way of essential background readings and short conceptual essays on the topic.

Achterhuis, Hans, ed. American Philosophy of Technology: The Empirical Turn. Translated by Robert P. Crease. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001. A very accessible introduction to six of the most influential contemporary American philosophers of technology working from within the continental tradition in the context of the empirical turn.

Dusek,Val. Philosophy of Technology: An Introduction. Malden: Blackwell, 2006. This is a short and neat introduction by way of essays on contemporary approaches to philosophy of technology.

Franssen, Maarten, Pieter E. Vermaas, Peter Kroes, Anthonie W.M. Meijers (ed.). Philosophy of Technology After the Empirical Turn. Switzerland: Springer, 2016. Puts the empirical turn in perspective by illustrating the analytic approach towards philosophy of technology. Exemplary of the kind of conceptual work being done in conjunction with engineering and design practice.

Ihde, Don. Philosophy of Technology: An Introduction. London: Paragon House, 1998. Among one of the first introductory books on the topic. Also representative of Ihde’s unique style of engaging with the reader through a simple narrative grounded in everyday use of technologies.

Mitcham, Carl. Thinking Through Technology: The Path Between Engineering and Philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994. By far one of the best introductions to the field by way of history and biography of some of the major thinkers. Also engages with analytic issues in philosophy of technology. An essential and enjoyable read for anyone interesting in the intersections between philosophy, technology, and engineering.

Scharff, Robert C. and Val Dusek. Philosophy of Technology, The Technological Condition: An Anthology. Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 2014. This anthology is a collection of essays related to the study of technology divided into six parts that touch a range of issues and approaches, stretching from Plato to the contemporary philosophers of technology.

Books on specific topics

Phenomenological approaches

Borgmann, Albert. Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life: A Philosophical Inquiry. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984. A phenomenological reflection on everyday technologies in our midst and how they shape our lives. Offers a Heideggerian perspective on the characteristic of contemporary consumer culture, which he calls the ‘device paradigm’.

Dreyfus, Hubert. What Computers Still Can’t Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1999. Dreyfus here levels a Heideggerian critique of the foundational assumptions of artificial intelligence, thereby exposing the limits of AI research. See also the collection of essays in his follow-up book, On The Internet. Oxon: Routledge, 2001.

Feenberg, Andrew. Heidegger and Marcuse: The Catastrophe and Redemption of History. New York: Routledge, 2005. Feenberg’s work brings together Heideggerian phenomenology and the critical theory of Frankfurt School to the analysis of technology. This is a book that exemplifies this fusion.


Ihde, Don. Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990. Sets the tone for much of Ihde’s (post)phenomenological approach to the philosophy of technology.

Rosenberger, Robert and Peter-Paul Verbeek, ed. Postphenomenological Investigations: Essays on Human–Technology Relations. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2015. A collection of papers on the theoretical and conceptual aspects of postphenomenology. Also includes case studies employing the postphenomenological approach to specific technologies.

Rosenberger, Robert. Callous Objects: Designs Against the Homeless. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press, 2017. Exemplary of how the postphenomenological approach can be applied to the study of ‘immoral’ or ‘hostile’ designs.

Selinger, Evan, ed. Postphenomenology: A Critical Companion to Ihde. Albany: State University of New York, 2006. A festschrift devoted to the contributions of Don Ihde to the field of philosophy of technology. It contains a number of essays by leading scholars in the field who critically engage with Ihde’s postphenomenology.

Verbeek, Peter-Paul. What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design, translated by Robert P. Crease. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005. Expands Ihde’s postphenomenological theory of technological mediation into a moral framework for understanding and designing ‘moral’ technical artefacts. Also, a good introduction to the works of Don Ihde, Bruno Latour, and Albert Borgmann as they relate to the question of the moral aspect of technologies.

Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Technology

Baird, Davis. Thing Knowledge: A Philosophy of Scientific Instruments. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. A very insightful intervention into the epistemic status of scientific instruments following in the wake of Hacking’s experimental turn within philosophy of technology. Argues for epistemology to include not just facts and theories but artefacts and materially embodied knowledge.

Floridi, Luciano, ed. The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Floridi is one of the major thinkers in the fields of philosophy of computing and information ethics. This collection of articles introduces the reader to some of the core areas of research in this domain.

Ihde, Don. Instrumental Realism: The Interface between Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Technology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991. An overview of the turn towards scientific praxis and the technological embodiment of science within philosophy of science. Ihde’s emphasis is more towards the continental strains within philosophy of science; his discussions center around five North American philosophers who following the work of Thomas Kuhn and Michel Foucault recognize the significant role of technological instruments within the scientific method of inquiry. These include Hubert Dreyfus, Patrick Heelan, Robert Ackermann, Ian Hacking, and Don Ihde.

Radder, Hans, ed. The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2003. A collection of papers centered around the experimental and praxis turn in philosophy of science.

Hacking, Ian. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Hacking is one of the pioneers to inaugurate the experimental turn within philosophy of science. Argues from a realist standpoint for scientific knowledge as geared toward acting and intervening in the world rather than representing or getting the world right.

Galison, Peter. Einstein’s Clocks, Poincare’s Maps: Empires of Time. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004. A brilliant example illustrating how scientific ideas can be brought down to earth when the history of science, the theory of relativity, in particular, is retold from a perspective that pays close attention to the technological challenges of the day.

Nature of Technical Artefacts

Franssen, Maarten, Peter Kroes, Thomas A.C. Reydon, and Pieter E. Vermaas (eds.). Artefact Kinds: Ontology and the Human-Made World. Cham: Springer, 2014. A number of essays written by prominent philosophers working in contemporary metaphysics and addressing the vexed ontological problem of including technical artefacts and artefact kinds as real members of the furniture of the world.

Houkes, Wybo and Pieter E. Vermaas. Technical Functions: On the Use and Design of Artefacts. Dordrecht: Springer, 2010. A systematic effort at developing a theory of technical functions by way of conceptual analysis that traverses across the disciplines of philosophy, engineering, science, and biology.

Kroes, Peter. Technical Artefacts: Creations of Mind and Matter. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012. A dedicated effort at developing a theory of technical artefacts based on the dual nature theory of technical artefacts. Engages with discussions and debates surrounding theories of functions, ontology, engineering design, and the moral status of technical artefacts. Exemplary of the kind of rigorous work being done in the analytic tradition of philosophy of technology.

Margolis, Eric, and Stephen Laurence (ed.). Creations of the Mind: Theories of Artifacts and Their Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. A comprehensive collection of essays on the metaphysical, conceptual, cognitive, and evolutionary aspects of artefacts.

Meijers, Anthonie, ed. Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences (Volume 9). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2009. An essential anthology of works representative of the kind of analyses being done in contemporary philosophy of technology. Very comprehensive in scope, it comprises six parts that span across philosophies of engineering, sciences, design, and modelling.

Preston, Beth. A Philosophy of Material Culture: Action, Function, and Mind. New York: Routledge, 2013. One of the pioneering works in providing a philosophical foundation for understanding material culture. Brings together insights and debates from within philosophy of action, philosophy of technology, and philosophy of mind.

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37 (2006) 1–158, doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.12.001(–016). This issue of the journal is devoted to the dual nature theory of technical artefacts, which has gained much traction in accounting for the ontology and moral status of technical artefacts.

Moral Status of Technical Artefacts

Kroes, Peter and Peter-Paul Verbeek, ed. The Moral Status of Technical Artefacts. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014. A comprehensive collection of some of the most pressing ethical and metaethical discussions surrounding the moral status of technical artefacts.

Verbeek, Peter-Paul. Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. This is a follow-up of Verbeek’s postphenomenological insights developed in What Things Do, with greater focus on the question of locating morality and the design of ‘moral’ technologies.

De Vries, Marc J., Sven Ove Hansson, and Anthonie Meijers (ed.). Norms in Technology. Dordrecht: Springer, 2013. A collection of papers on the question of normativity in technologies written from an analytic and metaethical perspective. Connects well with existing literature on normativity in ethics and philosophy of action.

[i] Carl Mitcham, Thinking Through Technology: The Path Between Engineering and Philosophy (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), 20.

[ii] Ibid., p. 17.

[iii] Ibid., pp. 19-38.

[iv] ibid., p. 39

[v] Contemporary philosophy of technology however marks a shift in working alongside the disciplines of design and         engineering and closely following concrete technological practice.

[vi] ibid. p. 39

[vii] ibid. p. 63

[viii] Andrew Feenberg, “What is Philosophy of Technology?,” Lecture for the Komaba undergraduates, (June 2003): 1, Accessed 12 April, 2015.

[ix] Hans Achterhuis, ed., American Philosophy of Technology: The Empirical Turn, trans. Robert P. Crease (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001), 3.

[x] Maarten Franssen, “Analytic Philosophy of Technology,” in Philosophy of Technology: The Technological Condition, An Anthology, eds. Robert C. Sharff and Val Dusek (West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 2014).

[xi] Anthonie Meijers’ edited volume Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences is a collection of contributions from philosophers of technology with a predominantly analytic approach towards understanding technological problems.

[xii] Carl Mitcham, “Three Ways of Being-With Technology,” in Philosophy of Technology: The Technological Condition, An Anthology, eds. Robert C. Sharff and Val Dusek (West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 2014).

[xiii] Don Ihde, Foreword to New Waves in Philosophy of Technology, eds. Jan Kyrre Berg Olsen, Evan Selinger, and Soren Riis (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), xi.

[xiv] Philip Brey, “Philosophy of Technology after the Empirical Turn,” Techne 14, no. 1 (2010): 37.

[xv] Hans Achterhuis, Introduction to American Philosophy of Technology, 3.

[xvi] ibid., p. 3

[xvii] Peter-Paul Verbeek, What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design, trans. Robert P. Crease (Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005), 4.

[xviii] Ibid. pg. 7
Categories: PlodRead


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll Up