My Post-Postmodern Objective Account of Theory and Moral Analysis

Review of Politics

Volumn 62, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 675-706

  Kaplan, Morton A ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937329007     PISSN: 00346705     EISSN: 17486858     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0034670500042698     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Morton A. Kaplan, System and Process in International Politics (New York: Wiley, 1957) (hereafter cited as System and Process in the text). In the summer of 1939, 1 read the major works of Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel. Dissatisfied with their handling of the problem of knowledge, I wrote a long manuscript in which I developed what I later learned was a form of pragmatism. I wrote my dissertation on the philosophy of Morris R. Cohen. However, I did not understand how to apply pragmatism to moral analysis until I became acquainted with systems theory and cybernetics.
2. Despite my books in the area of philosophy, the reader may wonder what my credentials are for this task insofar as there is a near consensus among my critics that “Kaplan does not know philosophy.” Kenneth Waltz, the most prestigious student of international theory of the present period, wrote “sadly” of errors that “boggled” his mind [italics added]. In some cases, he used exclamation marks with respect to what he evidently regarded as claims so outlandish that simply to repeat them, without comment, made manifest their incoherence (See: Kenneth Waltz, “Theory of International Relations,” in Handbook of Political Science, ed. Fred Greenstein and Nelson Polsby, vol. 8, [Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975], pp. 56–64). It is, therefore, relevant to note that scholars who have distinguished professional credentials in the philosophy of science and science–and who had had no oral or written communication with me or common organizational connection prior to their comments on Science, Language, and the Human Condition– do not entirely share that judgment of my philosophical understanding. Patrick Heelan, a philosopher of science, with noted books on quantum theory, wrote “Synoptic knowledge…is now recovering through the work of critical and integrative philosophers such as…Morton Kaplan …[This] is a remarkable and challenging book.” Peter Mitchell, a Nobel laureate in science, wrote “The analytical pragmatic approach so nicely expounded…relates philosophy, science, and humanity in a uniquely reasonable way.”
3. Morton A. Kaplan, Justice, Human Nature, and Political Obligation (New York: Free Press, 1976) (hereafter cited as Justice);
4. Science, Language, and The Human Condition (New York: Paragon House, 1984, 1989) (hereafter cited as Science, Language); and Character and Identity (St. Paul: Professors World Peace Academy, 1998) (hereafter cited as Character and Identity).
5. Stephen C. Pepper, World Hypotheses (Berkeley: University of California, 1942), pp. 67–69.
6. Review of New Thinking in International Relations (1997)
7. edited by Michael Doyle and John Ikenberry, American Political Science Review 92 (1998): 972-73.
8. Science, Language, pp. 55–56. For the broader discussion, see pp. 49–70. Pages 141-154 of Character and Identity show why seemingly contradictory statements or positions can be treated objectively.
9. Quine's classical demonstration that there are no analytical truths as such– “The Two Dogmas of Empiricism”–is reproduced in simpler form in Justice, pp. 255–261. There are no synthetic truths as such either, for “analytical” and “synthetic” are correlative concepts.
10. Waltz, “Theory of International Relations,” p. 63.
11. The section of this essay in which Waltz engages the author's theory was reprinted with minor revisions in his Theory of International Politics (New York: Random House, 1979), pp. 50–59.
12. Ted Hopf, “Polarity, the Offense-Defense Balance, and War,” American Politimi Science Review 85 (1991): 475-493.
13. An account of Waltz's critique of my work can be found in Morton A. Kaplan, Towards Professionalism in International Theory (New York: The Free Press, 1979), especially pages 2,27-33, 37-39,42,47,48, 52,53,60, and 61. Each response contains a page reference to Waltz's article, “Theory of International Relations.” I deal here only with a few of the most central of Waltz's mistakes in understanding the arguments of philosophers or in critiquing my positions.
14. Is this statement false if it is true Character and Identity, pp. 122–123, explains why such inferences fail to distinguish between the sign and signed aspect of words.
15. William Reitzel, Morton A. Kaplan and Constnace G. Coblenz, United States Foreign Policy: 1945-1955 (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1956).
16. Waltz, “Theory of International Relations,” p. 63;
17. Kaplan, Professionalism, pp. 36–41.
18. System and Process, pp. 6–8;
19. Morton A. Kaplan, Aldine, 1969), pp. 57–63. Macropolitics (Chicago:
20. Waltz, “Theory of International Relations,” p. 57.
21. A readily accessible exposition of the plausible “logic” of this position is provided in Morton A. Kaplan, “The Systems Approach to International Politics,” in New Approaches to International Relations, ed. Morton A. Kaplan (New York: St. Martin's, 1968), p. 390.
22. Waltz, “Theory of International Relations,” p. 60.
23. “Theory of International Relations,”, p. 36.
24. “Theory of International Relations,”, pp. 36–37.
25. Waltz argues for the irrelevance of rational actor analysis (“Theory of International Relations,”, p. 39).
26. This procedure can be folded into the test-in-principle, which permits a moderate-confidence, loosely ordered moral evaluation of societies and of actions within them. A very early formulation occurs in Appendix 2 oí System and Process. See Justice, pp. 94–106;
27. Science, Language, pp. 259–278;
28. and Character and Identity, pp. 234–235 for better statements. See chapter 8 of System and Process fora discussion of the national interest.
29. W. Franke in Kaplan, New Approaches, pp. 426–456.
30. William H. Riker, The Theory of Political Coalitions (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962).
31. Donald L. Reinkin, “Computer Explorations of the ‘Balance of Power’: A Project Report,” in Kaplan, New Approaches, pp. 459–481.
32. L. J. Savage developed this concept for games against nature, but it can be used in both game theory and asymmetric bargaining games (in Kaplan, New Approaches, pp. 490–502).
33. Waltz, “Theory of International Relations,” p. 26.
34. In the asymmetric bargaining game–and all bargaining games are really asymmetric–there is a Pareto optimal solution line that includes an extreme range of outcomes. I succeeded in narrowing this line but not in reducing it to a single point (System and Process, pp. 193–199).
35. The best book on the theory of international relations is Andrew P. Dunne, International Theory (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1996).