I argue that chess is not a game because it lacks a prelucery goal. Chess consequently has more in common with mathematics and physics that it has in common with darts sprints and lawn bowling. I never quite know when something is metaphysics, but the idea of games exists as a game then it's making an ontological claim so it isn't explicit. It's like someone took a discussion in a Tarantino film unlike it exactly and had a whole metaphysical debate about it uh or are are is this metaphysics?
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: