The overwhelming like response to the episode and even on this topic has been positive. I get that maybe people are afraid that you could run rampant if you don't have some discipline, some boundaries. But but I'd rather that than rob the fun out of it by telling me exactly what you meant. There's something about the genre itself that lends itself more to open ended interpretation. Whereas novels need more questions answered because all there is is the words.
In this podcast we examine a recent argument for the view that chess is not, in fact, a game. We discuss the Grasshopper’s claim that all games must have a prelusory goal, as well as Skepticus’ objection to the giant Grasshopper concerning chess. We then turn to a broader analysis of the Suitsian account of games. Does the existence of illusory checkmates offer Grasshopper an avenue for replying to Skepticus? Should we bite the bullet and agree that chess is not a game? What is a lusory attitude? Is Tamler losing his mind? Why is David so giddy?
Plus – how should Arthur C. Clarke’s novel "2001: A Space Odyssey" affect our understanding of Kubrick’s movie? And a little more on Kanye.
Sponsored By:
Support Very Bad Wizards
Links: