Press "Enter" to skip to content

Mese: giugno 2019

5 Giudizi a priori, puri e a posteriori – una rassegna essenziale

Vuoi leggere l’intero articolo? Vai qui!

Scopri i libri della collana di Scuola Filosofica!


I predicati dei giudizi che abbiamo visto sono i due più fondamentali: giudizi analitici e giudizi sintetici. Queste due tipologie[1] di giudizio sono generali e riguardano la loro definizione puramente linguistica, cioè che non considera il ruolo dell’esperienza in essa. Tuttavia, Kant distingue altre tre categorie che si applicano propriamente ai giudizi: x a priori, x a posteriori e x puro. Da qui si hanno altre tipologie di giudizio ottenute per combinazione ma intanto cerchiamo di capire cosa significano queste parti.

The gambler’s revenge – AlphaZero, the brilliant universal chess champion

Pili, Giangiuseppe; Un mistero in bianco e nero – La filosofia degli scacchi, Bologna: Le Due Torri.

Scopri i libri della collana di Scuola Filosofica!


Is Magnus Carlsen better than AlphaZero? We don’t know actually, but it would be difficult to be argued the opposite. Magnus, appropriately, seems to not taking too seriously this entity more able of him playing chess in the universe. After all, Magnus is too young to bother that a piece of technology could be able to perform a task better than humans. He did not grow up, as I did, in a place and time in which everything about technology and innovation is seen with great suspicious to say the least. Although Italy is still an extreme case, many people were worried when DeepBlue won the match with Garry Kasparov, as it was reported by Tim Van Geleder, in a philosophical analysis in which all the usual concerns were carefully considered.[1]

Brexit and Terrorism: EU Law on Terrorism Facing the Threat of Brexit [Brexit Institute]

It is with my great pleasure to report the blog post for the Brexit Institute (Dublin City University): “Brexit and Terrorism: EU Law on Terrorism Facing the Threat of Brexit“. I want to thank Ph.D. Student and IASTE member, Ferdinando Angeletti, for his major contribution on writing this post. Here you can find the abstract!


Introduction

UK’s exit from the European Union is still not completed: according to the procedure defined by Article 50 of the European Union Treaty (so-called Brexit) the process is not finished yet. However, it is appropriate to evaluate the legal consequences that it may generate in the near future. The legislation of the EU covers several decades with a particularly thriving normative production in the twenty-five years following the Maastricht Treaty (1992). For the United Kingdom (UK), going back then will not be an easy task. Especially, it will be a delicate process to re-define matters such as criminal law and criminal procedure. In this post, we will analyze the consequences that the UK will face in the legislation on terrorism, focusing our analysis on the European criminal and procedural laws and on judicial cooperation relations in the field of terrorism. Indeed, unless the exit agreements do not provide otherwise, the current agreements will become inapplicable.

Ciclo di seminari “Ai confini della filosofia”

Carissimi lettori e lettrici di Scuola Filosofica, vi ricordo a breve l’appuntamento con il quinto e ultimo incontro del ciclo di seminari “Ai confini della filosofia” fondato sulla collana di libri di Scuola Filosofica ed organizzato in collaborazione con l’Accademia d’Arte di Cagliari e con l’editore Le Due Torri.

Il quinto seminario si svolgerà il 15 giugno a partire dalle ore 17:30 all’Accademia d’Arte di Cagliari presso il Lazzaretto di Sant’Elia. Il relatore sarà il dott. Giangiuseppe Pili, autore del libro “Socrate va in guerra”.

Vi aspettiamo!

Intelligence and social knowledge – A philosophical inquiring on the social epistemological nature of intelligence as a state institution

It is with my great pleasure that I post the abstract of my second paper in an international journal of intelligence (RISW). I am particularly proud of this piece of research, which is the first attempt toward a social epistemological theory of intelligence as a state institution. In addition, this paper is based on my Ph.D. thesis (second Chapter – social epistemology of organization and institution). Did you always believe, as I believed that Ph.D. thesis are not always useful? You are not alone, but sometimes it turns to be useful! And, hopefully, this is just the beginning of a long series of works on intelligence and epistemology. Some of you still remember (dont’ you?) my recent paper “Epistemology and intelligence – Some philosophical problems to be solved“, proudly published in the International Journal of Security, Intelligence and Public Affairs. However, I am working on an ambitious set of papers on my topics in prominent journals! Then, stay in tuned with me and my research and don’t esitate to contact me if you would like to read my works!


Abstract

Intelligence is about speaking the truth to the policy-maker. However, this truth is not simply the result of an intellectual inquiring on something which is not in the eyes of the beholder. Intelligence is a social enterprise performed by a collective agent, namely the intelligence agency. Then, intelligence strives for the truth although this endeavor is a very difficult achievement indeed, so much so that intelligence is grounded on performing an entire intelligence cycle completed by an entire institution. Social epistemology is a new branch of analytic philosophy and it inquires the nature of social knowledge and collective agents. This paper considers the role of social knowledge inside intelligence as an institution of the state and it tries to address some fundamental questions related to the social epistemological nature of intelligence.