I want to clarify one thing which I said in my blogpost about the trend of common sense ideas holding sway whether it be in chess or in life. It's not that we appeal per se to a common sense answer when posing a philosophical question; rather, it's that the questions we are posing require a common sense answer because they are in essence common sense questions! In the beginning was the first act, and instead of going backwards and examining what exactly came before this act, we tend to go forwards and analyze after the act, as if it doesn't even beg the question as to what came before. And I think this way -- of crafting questions within a framework so to speak -- that things are done (whether they be done in chess or in life) is pointless: it's like using your successes to boost your ego, which is as I've written in the blogpost emphatically *NOT* the way to go in life. You can say that the quest for true knowledge (as the sages call it) is a dangerous endeavor; however I think that it's the only one worthwhile. Although I could be wrong and would love to know others' thoughts!
@volitionwill
> I want to clarify one thing which I said in my blogpost about the trend of common sense ideas holding sway whether it be in chess or in life. It's not that we appeal per se to a common sense answer when posing a philosophical question; rather, it's that the questions we are posing require a common sense answer because they are in essence common sense questions!
I understand what you are saying here, but everything after that I am having a hard time seeing the correlation. What does common sense have to do with the analogy of using your succesess to boost your ego? Or especially this part,
> And I think this way -- of crafting questions within a framework so to speak -- that things are done (whether they be done in chess or in life) is pointless
I think this gives me trouble because of grammatical issues or ambiguity.
> I want to clarify one thing which I said in my blogpost about the trend of common sense ideas holding sway whether it be in chess or in life. It's not that we appeal per se to a common sense answer when posing a philosophical question; rather, it's that the questions we are posing require a common sense answer because they are in essence common sense questions!
I understand what you are saying here, but everything after that I am having a hard time seeing the correlation. What does common sense have to do with the analogy of using your succesess to boost your ego? Or especially this part,
> And I think this way -- of crafting questions within a framework so to speak -- that things are done (whether they be done in chess or in life) is pointless
I think this gives me trouble because of grammatical issues or ambiguity.
mainly ambiguity
You should have clarified it in the blog forum itself.
A girl person once told me she despised the boost in confidence she witnessed in romantic partners after consummation.
Success depends on many things. The puff-able ego is perilous, indeed.
Was thinking 'chicken ball'
Success depends on many things. The puff-able ego is perilous, indeed.
Was thinking 'chicken ball'
And we all know what time it is when yahgoled thinks 'chicken ball'.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.