Climate is one opportunity that has been systematically overlooked for its philosophical possibilities. We have had the phenomenology of place. But we have not, except as a corollary to place, arrived at a phenomenology of climate. Climate is often dismissed as a thing that one has to learn about in first year. And many pay hommage to the word and forget what it means. An empty gesture. Climate, like the everyday, is philosophically the most profound instrument of design. It is the determinant of our way of being, our identity with all its visual signifiers: clothes, gestures, you name it, climate sets the scene and animates the imagination. Climate has determined the colour of our skin; it confronts us with everyday realities, which have the most pervasive and profound effect on our mode of being in the world. It needs its agenda theorised. Not merely as “shelter”, which implies a rather simple turning away from the elements, but in the way that climate modulates the relationship between the inside and the outside, plays with that relationship, puts us back as human-beings-who-are-part-of-the-world. In some countries climate allows architecture to relinquish shelter as a primary concern and instead architecture extends well into the invisible and religious ordering of the landscape: the “architecture” of the cosmos, makes the landscape come alive.[1]