He says that the Perlucery goal has produced two narrow definition of a game. Does he think that is just pure gibberish or do you think it is saying something coherent if misguided or do you just agree with it i feel like we have to reflect on the jury is how depending on how well the argument works. If there were a game where i couldn't specify the end state it would be very difficult and i might not play it so it's not a game to me if a game refuses to be played is it like monopoly it's fuck that there's no end state that's uh well this is actually an issue in the paper that i also wanted to ask you about
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: