• introbert
    333
    Chess is a game that requires the players to think ahead and carry-out strategic combinations of movements with the chess pieces to entrap the king. A chess piece is basically a form that gives it an outward identity, and also content regarding rules for its use. I have always appreciated a good chess player that is able to outmaneuver another player's forms by being attentive to the complexity of content presented on the board. However, I do not have much attention for chess because I find it uninteresting.

    Something I do find interesting, on the other hand, is philosophical debate / method. There is an element of chess that I try to emulate in philosophical debate / method, and that is thinking ahead in anticipation of how my argument or idea will be countered by an opponent. This is a reflexive activity when thinking alone, and a good practice in debate, but it is sometimes difficult to do on the fly. Socrates himself enacted a strategy by feigning ignorance and then applying his method of questioning to pick apart his opponent's concept.

    If Socrates is taken as an example his concept would be a king, feigning ignorance would be any move that leaves an opening or seems naive or clumsy, a question would be a piece, let's say a Knight, because its movement looks like a question mark. His opponent simply states a 'fact' which we will call a pawn. So, in a standard Socratic dialogue the player makes clumsy moves with his knight and the opposing player sacrifices his pawns. But what other pieces are taking the pawns? Fortunately, a chess set only has king, queen, bishop, knight, rook and pawn, so I only need to think of three more things to complete this essay. King is concept, knight is question, pawn is 'fact', bishop can be reason, queen can be irrationality, and rook can be denial. The philosophical chessboard is more varied than that, but these few pieces will help me elaborate my point.

    Of course, the type of arguments the pieces represents are the forms, but the contents are what they can do and what they can't do. A concept has a basic defense of its own merits, but it can't defend itself well. Irrationality has the least limitations, but it is prone to be used too wildly, so is easily sacrificed. Reason is a direct challenge against any other piece, but it is limited by rules. Question has to be used with calculation to be used with good effect. Denial is a basic defense that can be used as a barrier or used offensively as a negation. Fact is a fundamentally weak and vulnerable but is used for basic defense and offence.

    The reader might be wondering, if arguments or parts of arguments are chess-pieces how can they be used with strategy? Earlier the basic strategy of Socrates was employed. Personally, I am not good at chess or at arguing, but I do have a basic strategy that I employ naturally: irony. This is related to Socrates, but the basic strategy how it unfolds is thus:

    I open up my concept early with clumsy movements of facts and irrationality. I do not ask any questions, leaving them in the back row. The opponent responds with reason and questioning, judiciously stating facts that are threatening but also defensive of its concept. I am forced to castle, denying a combo of rational-questioning directed at my concept. However, I am able to defend my irrationality with rationality, eliminating the facts directed against it. The opponent's concept is left defended only with denial. I exchange irrationality with the opponent, both sacrificing it. And somehow the game ends, and I ironically, still think I won.
  • Mww
    4.5k


    That was kinda fun.

    I am able to defend my irrationality with rationality, eliminating the facts directed against it.introbert

    This says a queen’s defense, but there’s no defender named “rationality”. What’s defending the queen, sufficient for eliminating pawns/facts directed against it? It’s cool to attack irrationality with facts.....I get that.....but it’s usually an exercise in futility to attack a queen with a pawn, especially without knowing what allies the queen might have.

    Seems a waste of power to have reason stand for a direct challenge against any other piece, then don’t use it for defense of your own concept.

    Anyway.....something out of the ordinary, making it worthy just for that.
  • introbert
    333
    thanks,

    Rationality=reason=logic=bishop
  • Mww
    4.5k


    Ahhhh...ok, that’s better. Still, to attack a fact/pawn with reason/bishop, an awful lot of antecedent conditions must have already been aligned. The rules of reason/bishop movement are quite restricted, which makes explicit the reason being used must relate to the fact it is attacking.....the colors of both must have a correlation, or no bishop attack is even possible. It’s like.....you can’t take a picture with a sewing machine.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    All I know is I feel like a pawn. So which piece do other posters identify themselves with?
  • introbert
    333
    Im not sure how deep the metaphor goes but the pawn/fact is related to the concept/king. The bishop/ reason is attacking a fact in defence of the concept. So if the concept is 'utilitarian' and fact is 'happiness is good' reason attacking could be 'happiness is from using things, using is ethically bad or wrong, happiness is bad or wrong' or something. The bishop being on one colour going diagonally is just reflective of degree of restriction relative to, say, irrationality where there are less rules but obviously some rules or else it would be something else (another piece).

    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.
  • Mww
    4.5k
    Im not sure how deep the metaphor goes.....introbert

    That’s what’s so interesting about it. Can go wherever one wishes to take it, then figure out whether it conforms to the conditions you presented, and, why it does or does not.

    Metaphysical reductionism writ large. Satisfied by imagination on the one hand, killed by sheer boredom on the other.
  • T Clark
    13k
    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.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    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

    :cool:

    Long live the Queen!

    Did you know, Queen = Bishop + Castle? Of course ya did!
  • Universal Student
    41
    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

    My thoughts exactly.
  • Srap Tasmaner
    4.6k


    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.

    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.
  • Ciceronianus
    2.9k
    But don't forget that chess is also cooperative. Takes two to play a game.Srap Tasmaner

    And to Tango! Let's talk about how philosophy is like the Tango.
  • Srap Tasmaner
    4.6k


    Insofar as the practice of philosophy is largely a sort of conversation, there are obvious analogies to dance.
  • Alkis Piskas
    2.1k
    I do not have much attention for chess because I find it uninteresting.introbert
    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:
  • introbert
    333
    This post is meant to be fun, but there is a serious component in the metaphor of chess for philosophy. I have a sort of platonic perception of the forms and contents of things and the analogy of those to other seemingly unrelated things as sort of a phenomenon of forms and a noumenon of content. I look at the forms of the chess pieces as establishing a hierarchy of value and but the actual code or logic is noumenal. For philosophical forms like concept or irrationality there is an outward idea we get that is somewhat analogous to the forms in chess, and to a certain extent to the noumenal logic of both the pieces and the philosophy connected to them. It's easy enough to deny any relation to these two separate things altogether, but to me that some comparison can be drawn suggests to me that the material world is merely a very imposing distraction to an actual world of 'form' which is one level of informational reality and 'content' which in this case is the rules or code the analogous subjects. So I guess this post is a little bit of a lazy allusion to something more complicated, but I do appreciate the above comments and will address them in turn after work, as I am now on lunch break.
  • introbert
    333
    That's the typical way ideas are presented. Consider that your opening set of moves. If your idea is well thought out to begin with, concept is supported by facts and reason, you have already questioned your concept, and can strongly deny that it is flawed. In terms of irrationality, you have an ability to think intuitively and imaginatively about the idea, and are ready to defend it with strong emotion but not too much irrationality whereupon you commit fallacy and lose. That is just using the pieces on the board. A well thought out idea is analog to a strong opening before the opponent comes in and you become reactive, potentially setting your pieces into disarray: your facts are questioned, your reason is denied, you are put on the defensive and your irrationality and questioning surround your concept, so are not attacking the opponent's concept. Will they be a strong enough defense or is your entire 'strategy' a weak overall argument that can fall against a Socratic method, or other philosophical method, many of which can not be represented by the pieces in the outlined chess set.
  • introbert
    333
    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
    333
    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

    Of course, there are non-dialectical methods of philosophy that are not argumentative, but as you say this uncertainty surrounding the making of decisive arguments and resorting to persuasion has a lot to do with the fallibility of the subject and the weaknesses that are revealed when encountering another mind. 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
    333
    "it takes two to tango", "philosophy most often is a solitary activity (it can be done alone)" Tango=/=philosophy

    Chess takes two players as well, but believe it or not, a person can play themselves (him and her etc.) at chess.
  • introbert
    333
    Yes, ironically, I do not find chess interesting, but I find philosophy interesting and think the two are similar.
  • T Clark
    13k


    That is not how I see philosophy. I don't do it that way either, not when I do it right.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    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

    It looks very complicated from where I stand. Perhaps more advanced folks might be of greater assistance to you than me.
  • introbert
    333
    Maybe in an extremely technical sense it is a difficult question, but the simple semantic meaning of irrationality conforms to that simple formula.
  • Alkis Piskas
    2.1k

    OK. BTW, I love both. :smile:

    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.
  • Srap Tasmaner
    4.6k
    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

    That's right. In making a move, you put your ideas to the test, but it's not generally a dispositive test, only what another fallible player like yourself could come up with under the same constraints as you. These days, if you really want to know the truth, you'll ask Stockfish, but in the old days, you had to do your own analysis. A writer might give their analysis of a famous game between top-ranked players, only to be contradicted later by another writer who came up with some ideas the first writer overlooked.

    And this is another way in which chess has, before the computer era at least, resembled philosophy, or the sciences: it is cumulative. There is voluminous accumulated knowledge on openings and endings, middlegame strategies and combinational patterns. The first really serious use of computers was in completing, and in some cases correcting, our knowledge of fundamental endings. Now they just do everything better than us.

    None of which is really a surprise, because, as John von Neumann remarked, chess is not a game but a form a calculation. Of course it can be turned over to computers.

    Whether there is some reason philosophy cannot be, is an open question.
  • 180 Proof
    14k
    Chess is a finite syntactical game of strategy played within rigid parameters (64-checkered squares board & 32 pieces). Philosophy, however, is an infinite semantical meta-game of 'hermeneutics' played without rigid parameters. It seems to me that analogizing chess to philosophy (or vice versa) makes about as much sense as analogizing "Guitar Hero" to music theory.
  • introbert
    333
    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

    This is the fun with metaphor, that a seemingly unrelated object is used to make a point or to superimpose some quality from one disparate thing onto another. In the case of chess::philosophy, the chess-pieces superimpose an order onto the components of philosophical thought, as well as a dialectical nature found in two conflicting sides. I'm not going to go through the analogies between form and content of the pieces and the philosophy, as this has been done. The other games you mention could be used as a metaphor as well, but I find this one a richer allegory.

    Yes, chess is a war game, but philosophy in the dialectical perspective is about conflict. To say that philosophy is war would not be accurate, but drawing a comparison between something about war and something about conflict is not a stretch.

    Both of your comments relate to the finitude of chess but the boundlessness of philosophy. A computer can easily calculate all the moves of chess, but philosophy is something like an
    infinite semantical meta-game of 'hermeneutics' played without rigid parameters180 Proof
    . 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.
  • Srap Tasmaner
    4.6k
    A computer can easily calculate all the moves of chessintrobert

    Well no.

    The number of possible chess games is so large that — here I'm guessing — we'd need quantum computers to actually decide chess. As of now, it is common knowledge that white has some advantage; the statistics have been clear for a long time. What isn't clear, and no computer has determined yet, is whether that advantage is sufficient to win. Which just tells you that the concept of "advantage" is still, even with computer chess, a little tricky.

    Point being: chess being still undecided, computers are not in a qualitatively different position from us; they just have infallible memories, fewer biases (nowadays, not at the beginning), and can calculate very much faster.

    But there are also techniques to achieving such successes. Robert Kowalski, a key early figure in logic programming (especially the development of Prolog) and thus early AI, has suggested that humans might consider — instead of trying only to get them to think like us — learning to think a bit more like them.
  • introbert
    333
    Well no.Srap Tasmaner

    — here I'm guessing —Srap Tasmaner

    That's my excuse.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Maybe in an extremely technical sense it is a difficult question, but the simple semantic meaning of irrationality conforms to that simple formula.introbert

    What is this formula you're talking about?
  • Alkis Piskas
    2.1k

    OK,. I accept your analogy. I don't want to spoil it more! :smile:
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.