Doing what?
Is Chess A Waste of Time? A Call To Action
Sort:
Bentham doesn't seem to have the same insite into actual emotions and judgements of people due to his lack of personal experience in such matters. That and Mill is estimated by modern psychologists to have one of the top 5 IQs in history 
(right behind another philosopher, Goethe). But one might wonder.... for being so bright, why is it these types of guys can't write a discernable sentence?
With regard to utilitarianism, there's no doubt that Mill has a more sophisticated and nuanced vision of what the greatest happiness for the greatest number would be.
What I like about Bentham is that he was the originator of this concept, which was quite original at the time. He influenced many people who came later, and the seeds of their work can be found in Bentham's writing.
He was ahead of his time and influenced the direction of legal thought in England. He was an advocate for the decriminalization of homosexual acts which is something thst didn't happen until well into the 20th century.
He called the idea of natural rights and natural law "nonsense on stilts." He had himself stuffed and put on display after his death. You gotta love the guy!
electricpawn wrote:
Bentham doesn't seem to have the same insite into actual emotions and judgements of people due to his lack of personal experience in such matters. That and Mill is estimated by modern psychologists to have one of the top 5 IQs in history (right behind another philosopher, Goethe). But one might wonder.... for being so bright, why is it these types of guys can't write a discernable sentence?
With regard to utilitarianism, there's no doubt that Mill has a more sophisticated and nuanced vision of what the greatest happiness for the greatest number would be.
What I like about Bentham is that he was the originator of this concept, which was quite original at the time. He influenced many people who came later, and the seeds of their work can be found in Bentham's writing.
He was ahead of his time and influenced the direction of legal thought in England. He was an advocate for the decriminalization of homosexual acts which is something thst didn't happen until well into the 20th century.
He called the idea of natural rights and natural law "nonsense on stilts." He had himself stuffed and put on display after his death. You gotta love the guy!
And with that, I can start holding hope that this entire topic of conversation can be subverted into a conversation concerning the Utilitarians.
On a sidenote, when speaking about Bentham's contributions to society, don't forget, he was also one of the first who called for equality of the sexes, which, in 19th century England, was also extremely far ahead of its time.
Everything is a waste of time if you get right down to it. It does not matter whether it is chess, soccer, or anything.
Fiveofswords wrote:
A bizarre question which can be approached from many angles.
Until you determine that life has some purpose its rather impossible to even ask such a question. I would assume that life having a purpose implies that we are simply tools. Id rather not think of myself as a tool.
Are theres pragmatic benefits to chess? I think so, absolutely. Its difficult for a person to find a medium where they can actually use their deductive reasoning and see the success of it...in philosophy you cant know when you 'win' but in chess its quite obvious. Flaws of thought which inspire mistakes in chess i feel are exactly the same flaws of thought which cause errors in real life decision making. In chess you have an opportunity to actually see it in front of you, recognize the mistake, and perhaps know your state of mind which caused the mistake and optimally correct that....Also I know i would probably go insane if I didnt occupy my mind with some activity, and there really isnt anything availible to me better than chess.
Chess is a sport. You could generalize the question and ask if sports are a waste of time? I think they offer a motivation to excell, and they also serve as a guide to what humans are capable of doing when they are driven. The reward of such behaviour in real world application is always much less clear...unfortunately...
chess is also basically a recreational activity. Is recreation a waste? this would be a very hard sell to anyone. Bare survival is of no importance if there is nothing nice about surviving.
That is a very nice explanation.
I haven't heard too many responses to my follow up question:
Would you agree that it is impossible to be great at chess without being addicted to it?
(For the record, to borgqueen and wbbaxterbones, I did consider posting this in "off-topic," but the instructions for that forum say that it's not chess-related. Since this is chess-related, I posted it in "general chess discussion," whose instructions say that it doesn't seem to fit anywhere else.)
I see, Borgqueen. Thank you for clarifying. The reason I saw it as relevant is because:
If it's impossible to be great at chess without getting addicted, then maybe chess IS a waste of time. After all, addiction is not a good thing, and spending time developing a skill that you'll never be great at could be considered wasteful.
I'm not a psychologist, but I thought that's how addiction was defined, that you were compelled to continue a behavior despite it having negative effects. For example if you were addicted to being a good samaritan you may act out the behavior to the extent that you're neglecting your own health, relationships, or responsibilities.
BorgQueen wrote:
I'm not a psychologist either and I don't feel I have to be in order to research what addiction means.
http://www.google.com.au/search?rls=ig&hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+addiction&meta=&aq=f&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Hope the link works. Just means you allow something to become a habit and struggle to stop doing it.
The link works :)
If you were "abnormally" dependent or tolerant of the action, it would mean you're doing it despite harm I would guess... I mean if you were "addicted" to helping people, in that you had strong cravings to help others, what would take it to the level of being abnormally dependent on it?
I took your advice and looked it up and the DSM says as much.
tonydal wrote:
Ah, more semantics...glad you cleared that one up...
Glad I cleared it up for you. But like the borgqueen suggested to me, you could have simply looked it up yourself.
Also I don't think philosophers are pompous windbags who fail to consider as much, they just enjoy thinking in depth about a subject. It's not to lecture or correct others but because they find it fun to ask questions and explore ideas. Maybe because they're so automatically offensive to you it never entered your mind.
BorgQueen wrote:
orangehonda wrote:
... I mean if you were "addicted" to helping people, in that you had strong cravings to help others, what would take it to the level of being abnormally dependent on it?...
Getting a sense of goodness and satisfaction from helping others might become addictive. Such a person would crave the good feelings and so go out of their way to help others to get it... in much the same way as a basejumper goes out of their way to get their fix of adrenaline.
And just like the basejumper it just takes one slight misstep and.... SPLAT
Ok, well maybe not. That makes sense, and I don't really disagree.
While chess may indeed just be a waste of time I think watching TV and many other things that people engage in are also..... Let's face it, in a lifetime most people waste a lot of time at various things......
Apr 20, 2010
0
#56
yusuf_prasojo wrote:
Terrie wrote:Personally I find chess to be an important part of my life. It allows me to destress from even the worst of days. When everything else in my life is going wrong I can set down with my board and concentrate solely on my game and not think of anything else.
Will the problem be gone/solved after going back from your chessboard? Or does it get worse because you don't immediately take some action?
It is okay to say that chess is good because you can use it to run away to when you have a problem. But will we say the same thing about dope.
You misunderstand. I do not use chess to run away from my problems. But one does not have to spend every waking moment embroiled in them. Taking an hour during your day to focus on something else, in this case chess, is not only a relief but healthy as well. It alows you to step back and see the problem fresh. By the way, spending an hour or two a day on chess is hardly escapism to be compared to drug use.
I think that we can all safely say, that, chess is a waste of time, but however, what isn't. Everythng is a waste of time if you get right down to it.
I think we are discovering a new religion.
No fun, only work!
I can't speak for others but in my life chess is not a waste of time, and it's very much a symbiotic relationship. I get more out of it then i put in by far, and the rewards stretch beyond the bounds of the board itself. It's dependant on the person of course as to whether or not it's a waste of time, and i think the most important factor is what a person expects and wants from the game. I want a competitive challenge that also helps to improve myself mentally in ways that i can use in other aspects of my life, and chess has done that for me. Anyway that's my thoughts on the matter, my simple answer is without a doubt my chess time is time well spent.
Apr 20, 2010
0
#60
When you have a fairly demanding day-time job you are left with let's say 4 hours daily for everything else in your life (family, friends, career, spirituality, sciences as somebody else mentioned). Now, if you spend 2 hours daily on chess (50% of your leisure time) I'm sure that pretty soon you'll realize that you've neglected other things which you consider more important.
The problem with chess is that it sucks a lot of time for small improvements and without those improvements you wouldn't do it anyway.
Personally, I'm trying to cut down on my time spent on chess to better reflect its priority on my list.
Not if you enjoy it. It's not a waste of time to do something you enjoy doing.