hahahahahahteeejej

Why do we play chess? More precisely, should we be playing chess? Should we, in fact, be posting here instead of spending time with our friends and family?

This issue raises a hot ethical debate. In the late 18th century, Immanuel Kant published his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, in which he laid out his ethical philosophy. Invoking the concept of a law, he said that all human beings obey a law that influences and motivates our actions, although we cannot know what that law is. In other words, Kant says, we think we are autonomous beings, but, in reality, are heteronomous - that is, we are not the author of our own fate, so to speak.

What this translates to here is that although we may play chess of our own free will, in actuality we are doing so, assuming we are not physically forced to, due to forces we don't understand and don't even know are operating on a supra-mental level. Freud, who lived in Austria and who grew up on Kant, called this phenomenon being led by one's unconscious.

My view, and I hope you agree, is, ethically, it is very dangerous to be led by a law that you cannot control (of course, this position can also be debated). It's a deep debate, but when I tell people, you need to write a contract and then tear it up, in order to escape the law, after explaining them what I mean, they acknowledge my thesis.

Essentially you can take Plato's advice and compare the ethics to a household. The law is like the father; in fact, in ancient religious texts, the law is generally referred to law of the father and it's thought Kant got his idea to name it "law" from these texts. Assuming you are male (Freud also assumed this, but my big hunch is if you are female then just reverse simply! - the law is the mother), then (and it's proven in the modern psychology) that you do things to garner your father's love and support. Because your father is always telling you what to do or not (disregarding Freud's Oedipus complex for now) he becomes the law that you follow. You may be playing chess because you want to be good enough for him, even if consciously you don't acknoweledge this fact. You feel indebted to your father; you want to prove to him you're worthy.

But, there's a way to escape the law of the father, even though you have no direct access to this law. Now one can see the mother at work. Specifically, I have in mind marriage - obviously not to actually marry your mother but to marry a women and love her, so she becomes your law (Freud would agree; a displacement of the Oedipus complex!) By leaving the father's household, one, in effect, "writes up a contract" of marriage. The law is still there, as a trace, but the new, stronger force, replaces the old one.

However, I advocate a freedom as the best policy for ethical actions. Marriage is great but not enough. Now it's time to "rip up the contract" so that you, essentially, can "be in touch with yourself" - that is, act according to your 'own' law. As Freud would probably agree, this freedom comes when you see, discover, your wife doesn't have the same sexual organs as you. You realize that the male was never special and that they have something you lack. So you "rip up the contract" and distance yourself from both father and wife/mummy, keeping both as someone you'd like to please, but yet having enough distance to think and humble yourself.

This is essentially how I think ethics works, and many professionals agree, albeit reluctantly. I play chess of my own free will, because it's fun - and when I'm having fun everyone benefits.

What do you think? Should you be playing chess? What do you have to say about the ethical theory?

Looking forward to your comment

I've never known anybody who studied philosophy and didn't come away from the experience by being a little confused.

We (humanity) should be playing chess. 

I believe chess is an expression of Kant's unknowable laws. It is only through chess can one see these laws themselves. To improve at chess one must improve their personal understanding of these laws. Ventures that measure the psyche such as astrology and tarot are useful, scientific trial and error practicing is useful as well.

of course a non-chess insight is also welcome

As the drowning man said   "I sink, therefore I am"

It was Descartes, and he said I think therefore I am. 

I don't know where you got that quote

Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say chess is an expression of Kant's unknowable law?

Think of all the champions of the past hundred years. Think of how they played and how it was all different and yet all the same. Kant's predestination theory leaves us room to make only choices. Chess, being a game purely comprised of choices, will show us our tendencies in the world. In the modern day, for example, chess player confidence is at an altime low, because many hold the belief that chess is reduced by computers to 1s and 0s. They are missing, however, that 1 and 0 are boundless and infinite respectively.(If you're confused about this idea, PM me, I'll explain my reasoning more in-depth.)

Understanding oneself is the foremost principle to understanding chess.

I assume astronomer999 was engaging in wordplay... they have that in the USA, surely? 

I think he should reKant his philosophy.

I take it seriously because I don't feel guilty precisely to take it seriously. When you obey the law (of the father, as I'm trying to explain), you feel like you cannot take such bs seriously, because your father, or your law, will look down upon you and shame you. When you don't take things seriously, you attribute it to your 'nature' - oh, I am carefree and not stuck up. But in fact we misattribute this cause to one we know, whereas, in actuality, an unknown cause influences our effects, our decisions.

Why I play chess, maybe my law (again, I stress it's the father until we fall in love and marry - even doesn't have to be marriage per se but find a "contract" with that other person figuratively speaking) says No! you cannot play it! It is for nerds! (precisely Lyotard has this theory of "Non du Pere" which means no of the father, which comes from "nom du pere" the name of the father. And Freud's theory of dream displacement would say well it's so similar you equate them in your unconscious and your dreams blah blah blah but only for the french... each culture has their own different problems why when you deal with global ethics you have to be really attuned and NOT too philosophical or intellectual).

But essentially you should not "judge" what is serious or not, because it is just you "speaking" through your law. It's not your own idea, although perhaps you think it is. What my ethical philosophy is trying to do is to accept this fate ("amor fati" - Nietzsche) and to try to fall in love, if not with a person, at least with humanity in general - for when you're in love you love, by extension, the world, and vice versa.)

Plato said lovers are the most virtuous people in the world because they have courage. What he was implying is that they become Free. But, precisely, free from the Kantian law. They were under a new law, which was greater than their old law. I think if everyone escaped their own law which derives from the household, there would be lesser racism, sexism, etc etc.

typical freudian repression as defense mechanism, its people like you that make the world a more dangerous place

one should never play chess because who would move the other pieces!?

You always need two to play.

yeah,started with the title. 

look, if i don't use big words, you won't remember what i said. that is why knowledge isnt enough you have to teach it too - veda

win with ambition and lose with dignity

Its a game...

sometimes people play chess as an escape, because they are fearful of doing something else. thier law tells them thou shat not do that thing so they do something else without ever questioning themselves. 

what kant says it not to do anything pathologically because it is not a universal maxim. he means if we play chess it should be a reason they everyone in the humanity shares, not a personal reason. otherwise were actiing out of our specific law, of fear