Abstract: Many projects in contemporary philosophy
are artifactual puzzles of no abiding significance, but it
is treacherously easy for graduate students to be lured
into devoting their careers to them, so advice is proffered
on how to avoid this trap
In defense of the potentially misguided grad student, sometimes it's not until we actually study chmess-like domains that we discover they are truly worth studying. Even if something like chmess is not prima facie a better game to play than chess, it could be that it takes some continued study to reveal its worth. Of course, if we have independent reasons to believe that further study won't lead to our discovering its worth, then I suppose we can give up on it.
Second, I really do think there's something to the idea that if people enjoy studying it, it's a worthwhile object of study. It may be that chmess doesn't overtake chess as everyone's favorite two-player strategy board game--but if it's fun for those who study it, who cares?
One wonders whether the same principles couldn't be applied to some non-philosophical fields, like some of the outer reaches of Number Theory.
There can be no doubt about the brilliance of some of its practitioners, but the beauties of their tours de force can only be appreciated by a tiny fraction of the populace.
Perhaps we need a philosophical field devoted to what is "worth doing". Are "lulz" enough?
Daniel Dennett: Higher-order truths about chmess
Abstract: Many projects in contemporary philosophy are artifactual puzzles of no abiding significance, but it is treacherously easy for graduate students to be lured into devoting their careers to them, so advice is proffered on how to avoid this trap
Thank you, this was an entertaining, but also foreboding read. On the plus side, it made me go back and reread some Austin!
I really like this paper. Here are my thoughts:
In defense of the potentially misguided grad student, sometimes it's not until we actually study chmess-like domains that we discover they are truly worth studying. Even if something like chmess is not prima facie a better game to play than chess, it could be that it takes some continued study to reveal its worth. Of course, if we have independent reasons to believe that further study won't lead to our discovering its worth, then I suppose we can give up on it.
Second, I really do think there's something to the idea that if people enjoy studying it, it's a worthwhile object of study. It may be that chmess doesn't overtake chess as everyone's favorite two-player strategy board game--but if it's fun for those who study it, who cares?
God bless Dan for reminding me to remain humble and charitable with the views of others.
I didn't read this paper but having read enough by Dennett I take this to be well executed sarcasm.
One wonders whether the same principles couldn't be applied to some non-philosophical fields, like some of the outer reaches of Number Theory.
There can be no doubt about the brilliance of some of its practitioners, but the beauties of their tours de force can only be appreciated by a tiny fraction of the populace.
Perhaps we need a philosophical field devoted to what is "worth doing". Are "lulz" enough?