Randall Dipert

(1951 - 2019)

Most authors writing about the ethics of cyberwarfare have assumed that just war theory— including the revisionist perspectives—is a more-or-less finished and agreed-upon moral theory, and that just war theory (JWT) applies in large part or even completely to cyberwarfare. This chapter argues that these assumptions are largely mistaken. Rather, the details of JWT’s foundations significantly impact the ways it might apply to cyberwarfare, far more than they do for the moral conditions governing traditional wars. In particular, any account of coordinated rational behavior by states, including many contractual theories, would have to deal extensively with some startling results in game theory, such as deterrent-based arguments for preemption and sometimes massively punitive actions. Precisely because cyberwarfare has potentially modest effects, and might be capable of carefully calibrated actions with more predictable effects than is the case for other military means, deterrence theories for cyberwarfare would be quite different.

MEDIEVAL AND RENAISSANCE LOGICSIMON OF FAVERSHAM, Quaestiones super Libro Elenchorum. Text in Latin with introduction and notes in English, edited by Sten Ebbesen, Thomas Izbicki, John Longeway, Francesco del Punta, Eileen Serene and Eleonore Stump. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1984. xiv + 270 pp. $3 1.OO.JACOPO ZABARELLA, De methodis libri quatuor; Liber de regressu. Edited by Cesare Vasoli. Bologna: Editrice CLUEB, 1985. xxxviii+ 193 pp. Lire 57,000.EDITIONSG. W. F. HEGEL, Wissenschafl der Logik. Erster Teil. Die objektive Logik, Erster Band. Die Lehre von Sein. Herausgegeben von F. Hogemann und W. Jaeschke. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1985. x + 448 S. DM 140.BERNARD BOLZANO, Wissenschaftslehre, Sects. 1-45. Edited and introduction Jan Berg. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Fromman, 1985. 269 pp. No price stated.MAX H. FISCH, C. J. W. KLOESEL, E. C. MOORE and DON D.ROBERTS, LYNN A. ZIEGLER, Writings of Charles S. Peirce: a chronological edition. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. Vol. I 1857-1866. 1982. xxxv + 698 pp. $32.50. Vo l. I1 1867-1871. 1984. xlviii + 649 pp. with introductory essays by Max H. Fisch, C. F. Delaney and Daniel D. -Merrill. $35.00.ALFRED TARSKI, Logic, semantics, metamathematics. Translated by J. H. Woodger. Second edition, edited and introduced by John Corcoran. Philadelphia: Hackett, 1983, xxx+ 506 pp. $50.00/£37.50 ; $29.50/&27.50.J. MITTELSTRASS, Enzyklopadie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie, Bd.2: H-0. Mannheim, Wien, Zurich: Bibliographisches Institut, 1984. 1105 pp. DM 156.LOGIC AND MATHEMATICSA. GROTE, Anzahl, Zahl und Menge. Die phanomenologische Grundlagen der Arithmetik. Hamburg: Meiner, 1983. vii + 143 pp. DM 36.VICTOR LOWE, Alfred North Whitehead: the man and his work. Volume 1: 1861-1910. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985. xi+ 351 pp. $27.50/£26.40.MURIEL SELTMAN and PETER SELTMAN, Piaget's logic: a critique of genetic epistemology. London, Boston and Sydney: George Allen and Unwin, 1985. ix+ 353 pp. £30.00.MORRIS KLINE, Mathemafics: the loss of certainty. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980. vi + 366 pp. $19.95.RACHEL WALLACE GARDEN, Modern logic and quantum mechanics. Bristol: Adam Hilger, 1983. xii+ 178 pp. £18.00.LOGIC AND LANGUAGEH. LEBLANC, E. MENDELSON and A. ORESTEIN, Logic, language, and mathematics. Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1984, 282 pp. Dfl.90/$34.50.R. M. MARTIN, Mind, modality, meaning and method. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1983. xiv+ 225 pp. $44.50 /$16.95.HERBERT HOCHBERG, Logic, ontology, and language-essays on truth and reality. Miinchen and Wein: Philosophia Verlag, 1984. 448 pp., $74.00.

Philosophers have almost always said something about emotions and passions whenever they have discussed human mental life. Many have asserted that it is some emotions or, more broadly, passions, that are to be primarily valued and sought. These valued passionate states of mind might include emotions, moods, desires, belief-like feelings of conviction and commitment, and romantic or erotic love, which are typically scarcely distinguished. Not only are these states of mind lumped together, but the reasons why they are valued may likewise be various: they may be valued because of their intrinsic feeling (especially insofar as they are intense), through their long-term or deep effects on the rest of our practical and mental lives, through their effects on others’ lives, or even in the glimpse they give us of an object that transcends our mundane and superficial concerns, as in love, peak experiences, or intimations of God, Beauty, or Nature. Others have claimed that it is in the subduing or elimination of some or all of these passions that the ideal human life consists. Again, what precisely are the objectionable passions is typically not delineated, and why such mental states are objectionable may be diverse and even unspecified. One might resent their "disruptive" nature on our mental life, especially insofar as some of them stem from external, uncontrollable sources, and instead seek a calm state that is within one’s control and not subject to these whimsical externalities. Or one can see many or all passions as disruptive of control and success in our inner or outer life, or in the lives of others. We might call this latter group the anti-emotional Rationalists, and the former group the pro-emotional Romantics.

One of the most significant discoveries of early twentieth century mathematical logic was a workable definition of ‘ordered pair’ totally within set theory. Norbert Wiener, and independently Casimir Kuratowski, are usually credited with this discovery. A definition of ‘ordered pair’ held the key to the precise formulation of the notions of ‘relation’ and ‘function’ — both of which are probably indispensable for an understanding of the foundations of mathematics. The set-theoretic definition of ‘ordered pair’ thus turned out to be a key victory for logicism, providing one admits set theory is logic. The definition also was instrumental in achieving the appearance of ontological economy — since it seemed only sets were needed — although this feature was emphasized only later.

Few philosophers today know much about Charles Peirce’s metaphysics, although a great many know something about his epistemology, philosophy of science, and logic. Indeed, few Peirce experts have written much on his metaphysics or made it the focus of their research. To an extent, this is understandable. Peirce’s writings were left in a disastrously disorganized state (mostly unpublished), and the crucial papers on metaphysics from his later years have not yet been republished in the first-rate chronological edition, the incomplete Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, edited at Indianapolis by my friends. And then there is Peirce’s writing: an awkward, abrasive, arrogant, eclectic style that demands technical knowledge in diverse fields, especially logic, mathematics, and the natural sciences. His worst personality traits manifested themselves in his highly technical metaphysics—with its idiosyncratic, anti-Cantorian conception of continua, a pecularly mathematical phenomenology, and elaborate views on Darwinian and non-Darwinian evolution, for example. Finally, there is what might appear to be the bizarreness of the theory itself, as we shall see. Peirce was a kind of philosophical swashbuckler, a bold, courageous speculator on philosophical questions beyond most of our temperaments even to ponder. Ours is not the philosophical age of Errol Flynn but the minimalist age of Harrison Ford, with no grand gestures or speeches, just a series of small, no-nonsense gestures: we typically like our philosophy short, neat, "science-like," and isolated from other philosophical issues.

Randall R. Dipert argues that, at first glance, Rand's view of representational arts, such as literature and the visual arts, might seem to have little applicability to pure music. Nevertheless, Rand took music without words as a serious art form, and struggled to develop a plausible theory of music. As Torres and Kamhi note in What Art Is, Rand's approach probably contradicted certain elements of her full aesthetic theory. But her theory of music and its relationship to emotions offers some fascinating suggestions that accord with—and in some respects go beyond—the best recent thinking in musical aesthetics.

Few philosophers today know much about Charles Peirce’s metaphysics, although a great many know something about his epistemology, philosophy of science, and logic. Indeed, few Peirce experts have written much on his metaphysics or made it the focus of their research. To an extent, this is understandable. Peirce’s writings were left in a disastrously disorganized state (mostly unpublished), and the crucial papers on metaphysics from his later years have not yet been republished in the first-rate chronological edition, the incomplete Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, edited at Indianapolis by my friends. And then there is Peirce’s writing: an awkward, abrasive, arrogant, eclectic style that demands technical knowledge in diverse fields, especially logic, mathematics, and the natural sciences. His worst personality traits manifested themselves in his highly technical metaphysics—with its idiosyncratic, anti-Cantorian conception of continua, a pecularly mathematical phenomenology, and elaborate views on Darwinian and non-Darwinian evolution, for example. Finally, there is what might appear to be the bizarreness of the theory itself, as we shall see. Peirce was a kind of philosophical swashbuckler, a bold, courageous speculator on philosophical questions beyond most of our temperaments even to ponder. Ours is not the philosophical age of Errol Flynn but the minimalist age of Harrison Ford, with no grand gestures or speeches, just a series of small, no-nonsense gestures: we typically like our philosophy short, neat, "science-like," and isolated from other philosophical issues.

This is an extensive and diffuse collection of essays woven together by a number of leitmotifs. It is a work by a technically virtuosic professional philosopher for readers with the same credentials; even many of the complicated examples use extensive insider information about the institution of professional analytic philosophy in the last half of the twentieth century in the United States. In the sequence of its chapters, we see a development that in some ways mirrors Castañeda's philosophical career and topics of active thought. Namely, Part 1 of the book, embracing 4 chapters, is devoted to linguistic phenomena--broadly to issues of reference, but with special attention to indexicals and what Castaneda has called "quasi-indexicals." It reads very difficultly for anyone not steeped in recent issues in the philosophy of language. Many elements of this work, might seem at first a rather slender basis on which to found a broader philosophy of mind, experience, and the world in the tradition of modern philosophy. But this is precisely what Castaneda has done in his career and in this volume. His earlier analyses of complex referential phenomena form the unlikely springboard for far-flung reflections in epistemology, phenomenology, metaphysics, and, especially, the philosophy of mind.

I do not think that previous writing on artifacts has been satisfactory, for reasons that will become clear. This situation has only been slightly remedied, I believe, by works such as my Artifacts, Agency, and Art Works, Dipert, sometimes referred to here as “AAA.” At the same time, I believe that a general notion of artifact is crucial for philosophy: the concept of an artifact is a central piece of our conception of the world. One of the important projects in the theory of artifacts that is incomplete, or perhaps has not yet even been seriously undertaken, is a definition of artifacts. To give a definition of artifact, and to explore its difficulties and entanglements, is the central organizing goal of this essay.

This essay makes three claims about preventive war, which is demarcated from preemptive war and is part of a broader class of ?anticipatory? wars. Anticipatory wars, but especially preventive war, are ?hard cases? for traditional Just War theory; other puzzles for this tradition include nuclear deterrence, humanitarian intervention, and provability a priori of the success of Tit-for-Tat. First, and despite strong assertions to the contrary, it is far from clear that preventive war is absolutely prohibited in traditional Just War Theory, and it is also dubious that it is in all cases ?clearly illegal?. Second, the morality of both preemptive and preventive wars is shown to turn on epistemological considerations: on what degree and kind of justification the primary metaphysical facts of threat can be reasonably believed. Third, an argument is made that whatever epistemic threshold is held to be necessary, some preventive wars will exceed it, and that this is more likely with advancing technologies of information acquisition. Finally, the common argument that allowing all nations to follow policies of preventive war would result in more wars than barring such policies is shown to be mistaken by simulations in game theory. Suggestions are made about the derivation of traditional Just War criteria from more basic moral principles, and about their subtle failures as jointly necessary conditions for the morality of war