Press "Enter" to skip to content

Autore: Giangiuseppe Pili

Giangiuseppe Pili è Ph.D. in filosofia e scienze della mente (2017). E' il fondatore di Scuola Filosofica in cui è editore, redatore e autore. Dalla data di fondazione del portale nel 2009, per SF ha scritto oltre 800 post. Egli è autore di numerosi saggi e articoli in riviste internazionali su tematiche legate all'intelligence, sicurezza e guerra. In lingua italiana ha pubblicato numerosi libri. Scacchista per passione. ---- ENGLISH PRESENTATION ------------------------------------------------- Giangiuseppe Pili - PhD philosophy and sciences of the mind (2017). He is an expert in intelligence and international security, war and philosophy. He is the founder of Scuola Filosofica (Philosophical School). He is a prolific author nationally and internationally. He is a passionate chess player and (back in the days!) amateurish movie maker.

Why the absolute cyberwar is taking place – A philosophical analysis of the cyber domain to understand the current strategic competition in the cyberspace

Scopri i libri della collana di Scuola Filosofica!

Would you like to help the scientific research in the field? Are you interested in cyberwar and cyber security? Please, write to the author (scuolafilosofica_at_gmail.com) and ask him for the first draft of the paper!


Abstract

The cyber domain is a set of rules implemented by an appropriate infrastructure. The cyber domain can be subjected to political influence and it can be exploited to reach political objectives quite far from its specific and limited nature. A completely different kind of war is happening inside the cyber domain. It is a war waged inside and outside the cyberspace in order to reach the strategic control of the rules, laws and principles of the domain itself. This means that the cyber domain is different from the other domains: it is the only one in which the human actors can change the laws of the domain itself. This is not a competition that could be conceived as the past wars. This war will not only affect all the citizens connected to the cyberspace, but it will result ultimately in the shape of the cyber domain itself. This is something deeper and much more radical of what we have seen before and this explains why the cyberwar will not take place: it is just happening. It is time to start thinking differently. A philosophical perspective is needed to improve our understanding of the very nature of the cyber domain.

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

Vuoi leggere l’intero articolo? Vai qui!

Iscriviti alla Newsletter!


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.

Iscriviti alla Newsletter!


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.

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.

4 Giudizi sintetici e giudizi analitici – Teoria del giudizio

Vuoi leggere l’intero articolo? Vai qui!

Iscriviti alla Newsletter!


Il lettore non si spaventi dal passaggio un po’ tecnico che Kant propone nella sua chiarificazione fondamentale tra tipi di giudizio. Se risulterà troppo complesso non ci sia niente di male nel saltarlo, sebbene esso sia uno dei risultati più importanti della critica nella sua dimensione di chiarificazione della nozione stessa di giudizio:

Is a chess player an intelligence analyst? – Learning from other disciplines how to improve intelligence analysis

Would you like to help the scientific research in the field? Are you interested in chess and intelligence analysis? Please, write to the author (scuolafilosofica_at_gmail.com) and ask him for the first draft of the paper!


Abstract

Is a chess player an intelligence analyst? Chess is considered one of the most interesting strategic games in the Western culture. Although the artificial intelligence applied to chess beats the world champion since 1997, chess is still one of the most challenging strategic games for our intelligence and understanding. Even though chess is a perfect information game, namely a game in which the players have all the information available at the same time for each position, chess is sufficiently complex and difficult to be unsolvable by sheer calculation. Chess players face uncertainty, tactical dilemmas, strategic conundrums, stress, pressure and great epistemological problems. Chess players deal with these problems all the time and they face them using knowledge and foreknowledge of the opponent’s capability and intentions to try to solve difficult problems in the chessboard. All they have is information to be translated in practical knowledge. They are aware that the opponent will do his/her best to win the game as he/she does. Ultimately, chess players analyze the position and the opponent’s threats and weaknesses in order to ground rational decisions. Intelligence analysts face similar problems to pursue a similar goal and they face them in an analogous fashion. In this paper, I will explore how Grand Master and ordinary chess players analyze the positions from both a strategic and tactical perspectives and I will show how the intelligence analysts can learn from them. After half a century the first chess computer appeared to the scene and hundreds of years of chess studies, we are still learning how to play better in the chessboard. Chess is still the most esteem and competitive game of our culture and it is time to bring it with all its complexity to the intelligence community in order to learn from it.

3. L’ampiezza e i risultati principali della “Critica della ragion pura”

Vuoi leggere l’intero articolo? Vai qui!

Iscriviti alla Newsletter!


La Critica della ragion pura riguarda tutte le condizioni che rendono possibile la spiegazione della nostra facoltà di giudizio: ‘Il tavolo è quadrato’ è un giudizio che si fonda sull’esperienza (quindi, nei termini kantiani è “sintetico”, vedremo oltre cosa significa) ma che non è esclusivamente basato su di essa. Un ‘quadrato’ non è un ente fisico reale: esistono infiniti esempi concreti (ed imprecisi) di quadrato, ma la nozione generale dipende da altro, ovvero dall’operazione di generalizzazione dell’esperienza che, in questo caso, proviene direttamente da una delle fonti della nostra intuizione (lo spazio, ovvero l’intuizione esterna: il lettore non si spaventi perché ci torneremo). Quindi, da un lato c’è l’esperienza del mondo esterno, dall’altro c’è l’intelletto che unifica l’esperienza in un giudizio.

(2) Il linguaggio della “Critica della Ragion Pura” e i suoi limiti legati alla facoltà di giudizio

Vuoi leggere l’intero articolo? Vai qui!

Iscriviti alla Newsletter!


Prima di scendere all’interno della teoria epistemologica kantiana (ʽepistemologiaʼ, ovvero ʽconoscenzaʼ) non sarà fuori luogo chiarire alcune caratteristiche estrinseche della sua opera, ovvero alcune sue proprietà secondarie, per dirla con John Locke, ovvero proprietà non essenziali all’oggetto ma che ne costituiscono comunque una parte della sua apparenza.