Perhaps @Golismeando-manchego can weigh in? I’m curious to hear his thoughts on the relationship between philosophy & chess. And I confess his notorious stream of consciousness was an inspiration for the preceding rant. ^_^ My intention was to go from making perfect sense to making none at all, as seamlessly as possible. Though I guess I cheated a bit by sticking that video in there; it hastened the transition to madness. (Probably a good thing, as otherwise I might have been long winded.)
Oh yes. That would indeed be marvellous.
Not to mention super philosophical.
By the way, what Wittgenstein did with language, is similar to what painters did with a piece of cloth and paint. Picasso, Bracque, etc in his day, but you can expand that at will.
@volitionwill As we all know Bobby Fisher thought that opening theory ruined chess.
I feel your attempting to correlate philosophy with Chess in that there's way more questions to be asked than the apparent 'common sense' chess approach can show and or answer.
so lets change the mindset and delve deeper.
Sorry if I've misunderstood you, this is just how I understood what you have written in your post.
@pawnedge said in #8:
> Depending on how you define certain words, both these statements could be considered identical. For example, the process which leads to one player getting checkmated could be said to be a kind of bewitchment of that player’s intelligence; and what is any language but a series of symbols? (Especially when it’s written down, but even when it’s spoken.) Both language & chess are abstractions, arguably of the same kind. (Selah.)
> It could then be said that Chess = Philosophy. It is the distillation of all possible arguments into abstract symbols and formal rules. Including invalid arguments. (E.g., some of those Tal got away with that perhaps he shouldn’t have; or most of those which beginners perpetrate upon other beginners.) Psychology plays an undeniable role as well. Philosophers, lawyers, politicians, professors, journalists and chessplayers all have in common this ability to bewitch others. It could therefore be said that like cider, gravy, very small rocks and churches, each of these professions is just another name for a witch:
> Of course, all of this is compounded by the following unavoidable problem:
> Wherefore verily I say unto ye, and of a surety I assure ye: Bwarblezoink! . . . (Hodor?)
<Comment deleted by user>
I like that. I'd personally perhaps call it II (Illusory Intelligence) in stead of Artificial Intelligence, but I'm kind of a Ronin that way;)
Nothing actually exists. The whole world is just human imagination.
@Akbar2thegreat said in #18:
> Nothing actually exists. The whole world is just human imagination.
another example of a game
@volitionwill @boilingFrog @pawnedge
There is no such thing as 'nothing' even the word nothing is a thing. Quantum Physics proves that there is always something. Are you talking about air? Empty space? Those are both 'things' are you talking about the absence of something? That is still a concept, a concept is a thing.
When you say nothing please, tell me exactly what you mean? What were you referring to?
I think people should refrain from discussing philosophy, but if you are going to down that road I suggest you
(1) have an aim (Empowerment, Enlightenment, Catharsis, a means to an end)
(2) Refrain from vague terms (like nothing, everything)
Now that you've written that word, could you define what you meant? Thanks.