I am able to defend my irrationality with rationality, eliminating the facts directed against it. — introbert
Im not sure how deep the metaphor goes..... — introbert
Definitely irrationality/ queen, to the extent of having a grandiose delusion of being the most powerful unit in the game but in practice so out of control i am vulnerable. — introbert
I usually don't see what we do here on the forum as competition. I have an idea I believe in or want to examine. I give my thoughts. I try to think them through before I do. Others respond.
Actually, maybe it is a competition, but it's between ideas, not people. Survival of the fittest. — T Clark
I usually don't see what we do here on the forum as competition. — T Clark
But don't forget that chess is also cooperative. Takes two to play a game. — Srap Tasmaner
You find it "uninteresting", and yet not only you seem to appreciate it a lot, but you have created a topic with a title based on an allegory connecting Phiosophy with Chess! :smile:I do not have much attention for chess because I find it uninteresting. — introbert
This is a terrible idea.
Chess is illuminating because it presents questions that may be decidable in principle but are not, for humans, in practice. The alternating reliance on calculation and heuristics, with the goal of grounding a decision under uncertainty, is very reminiscent of philosophy, which rarely gives opportunities for decisive arguments and must content itself with persuasion. And you still calculate whenever you can. — Srap Tasmaner
Q=B+C did I know? Yes, it is an observation I have made before. Does it fit here that rationality + denial (or its negation) = irrationality. I think it does. — introbert
An idea that seems well thought out to one person based on their (his and her etc) knowledge and capacities may be a very weak game to someone else more experienced or better able. — introbert
As for their similarity, I can't find anything that connects these two in a special way. You say, e.g. "thinking ahead in anticipation of how my argument or idea will be countered by an opponent." Well, this applies to most two-player board games, but also to sports (tennis, box ... you name it. It applies even in courts between defence and prosecution. In fact, it applies to most confrontations between two opponents.
But most of all, chess resembles to war. It's actually a "war" game. And I believe it is based on war, since all chessmen are war characters or elements. So, if philosophy resembles to chess, as you say, it certainly also resembles to war. Which sounds too weird. — Alkis Piskas
. Of course, this is the way chess is not like philosophy, it doesn't have unlimited content. But in the platonic vision I have of the analogical nature of 'reality' the forms of philosophy which are abstract ideals are represented in the chess pieces, but represent a possibly limitless amount of real content. Irrationality represents one abstract ideal but it is so many varied real things as logical fallacies, to intuition, to emotion, to divination, to imagination and so much more.infinite semantical meta-game of 'hermeneutics' played without rigid parameters — 180 Proof
A computer can easily calculate all the moves of chess — introbert
Maybe in an extremely technical sense it is a difficult question, but the simple semantic meaning of irrationality conforms to that simple formula. — introbert
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.