Philosophy of "As If"
Sort:
Dec 5, 2015
0
#2
Definitely there's metaphysical in chess. Had this idea once that chess is connected to the cosmos, but on a higher plane it's 'beyond' rationalizing.
Nekhemevich wrote:
Definitely there's metaphysical in chess. Had this idea once that chess is connected to the cosmos, but on a higher plane it's 'beyond' rationalizing.
There is as Kant says a "hidden" thread or inner logic behind the appearances of the tactics on the chessboard, so to speak.
But why do you think we are in a sense necessarily obligated to respect these laws as if they held sway over our games? Why couldn't we all be Tals and say essentially 2+2=5
And in line with that do you think Tal really believed 2+2=5 or was it all a show, even he felt the force of the inner logic of chess
Dec 5, 2015
0
#6
A machine punches out the moves, and it takes human ingenuity to think outside the box. These days the deep dark forest is less dense.
How, then, do you think Kant's rational faith (of Freedom) differs (if it does at all) from Plato's rational faith (of Wisdom)
it is what it is !
Alexandra - Either it is me or it is Kant
kingcoast - say more... what is what it is?
bjornb06 wrote:
How, then, do you think Kant's rational faith (of Freedom) differs (if it does at all) from Plato's rational faith (of Wisdom)
The real question I am wondering
Dec 5, 2015
0
#11
On Socrates view, 'to know the good is to do the good.' You can improve over time by educating yourself, and work on ways to put thoughts into actions. We find ourselve needing to break the constraints of moral rational thought, while also feel dependant on a set of rules to govern us. So I would say find a balance between moral obligation and freedom.
Nekhemevich wrote:
On Socrates view, 'to know the good is to do the good.' You can improve over time by educating yourself, and work on ways to put thoughts into actions. We find ourselve needing to break the constraints of moral rational thought, while also feel dependant on a set of rules to govern us. So I would say find a balance between moral obligation and freedom.
I agree but don't think that it's the rational thought per se but rather how we interpret this thought. The rule is treat others how you'd want to be treated. If people are mentally ill it's not the rational rule's fault...
Dec 5, 2015
0
#13
bjornb06 wrote:
Nekhemevich wrote:
On Socrates view, 'to know the good is to do the good.' You can improve over time by educating yourself, and work on ways to put thoughts into actions. We find ourselve needing to break the constraints of moral rational thought, while also feel dependant on a set of rules to govern us. So I would say find a balance between moral obligation and freedom.
I agree but don't think that it's the rational thought per se but rather how we interpret this thought. The rule is treat others how you'd want to be treated. If people are mentally ill it's not the rational rule's fault...
Treat others with kindness, but also treat yourself. It's like the 10 second rule to lower impulsivity. Stop, assess, proceed.
But it is not the rational morality's fault
Nekhemevich wrote:
bjornb06 wrote:
Nekhemevich wrote:
On Socrates view, 'to know the good is to do the good.' You can improve over time by educating yourself, and work on ways to put thoughts into actions. We find ourselve needing to break the constraints of moral rational thought, while also feel dependant on a set of rules to govern us. So I would say find a balance between moral obligation and freedom.
I agree but don't think that it's the rational thought per se but rather how we interpret this thought. The rule is treat others how you'd want to be treated. If people are mentally ill it's not the rational rule's fault...
Treat others with kindness, but also treat yourself. It's like the 10 second rule to lower impulsivity. Stop, assess, proceed.
But it is not the rational morality's fault
Virtue is important and comes from within the rational agent
Dec 5, 2015
0
#16
bjornb06 wrote:
But it is not the rational morality's fault
nor is it the responsibility for others to determine what a person's own choices are. There is morality on a global scale, but I think you will find that kindness goes a long way. It is a mutual respect between two people, and if that respect breaks down, its having the mindset to walk away. That is the rational morality.
The line I have in mind is from the following play / monologue (entitled metaphysics of morals)
"The idea of a pure world of understanding, as a whole of all intelligences (to which we ourselves belong as rational beings, although on the other side we are also members of the world of sense), remains always both a useful and permissible idea for the sake of a rational faith (even if all knowledge ends at its boundary). Why? So as to effect in us a lively interest in the moral law, by means of the glorious ideal of a universal kingdom of ends-in-themselves (ie of rational beings), to which we can belong as members only if we carefully conduct ourselves according to maxims of freedom (as if they were laws of nature).
The rational faith makes it, in other words, permissible to play a role (Kant's philosophy of "as if" so to speak)
We live our lives according to an "as if" mentality. It's not only in ethics that we play a role but also if we to be justified in something. So for example, if I see what appears to be a golden nugget but is in reality a painted rock, I'm still justified (the fancy term for this type of justification is prima facie) in believing that there's a piece of gold before me. So we praise and blame, essentially conduct our whole lives according to "as-if" scenarios.
I guess even in CHESS we do the same thing. Do you agree, why or why not?