Member Forums > Ender's Book Club

RIP Bobby Fischer

<< < (2/2)

Explicit:

--- Quote from: Ender on January 23, 2008, 11:14:57 pm ---I can't really tell whether you're belittling him or not in your post. Regardless, I'd like to point out the foolishness in criticizing Fischer. When someone criticizes Fischer, they are saying that they know how he could have lived his life better. But this is absurd since they would never in a million years be able to take on the top tier in chess single-handedly and then win the world championship, or meet any other challenge of comparable difficulty. Thus they can't back up their own criticism, and this makes them look foolish. This argument generalizes to criticizing any hero of any endeavor. It's different if they're Jack the Ripper, as one's criticism in this case would be grounded, but Fischer never harmed a fly with his remarks, however bad they are.

Note that since I don't know whether you belittled him or not, this post is not directed at you. Your post just made me think of this.

--- End quote ---

In addition to my first post, here's some clarification of context:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53671-2004Jul15.html

More specifically:


--- Quote ---A grand jury in Washington charged him with violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by going to Yugoslavia for the chess match against Boris Spassky.
--- End quote ---

Fischer was a genius, I admit it.  But in the latter portion of his life, mainly when he came out of his 20-or-so years of reclusiveness, he did seem a bit delusional, at least in an interview I watched roughly 2-3 years ago.

Ender:
I made my post because it is interesting philosophically. It is completely impersonal and very experimental. I'm not even saying that I believe in it (though I'm not saying that I don't). Basically, here's the argument:

1. Definition. Criticism: A statement on how one can live his or her life better. (This is blunt but it rings of truth.)

2. Premise. The critic cannot at the same time say how Fischer did what he did in chess. (This is a very safe premise.)

3. I claim that the critic does not know how Fischer can live his life better because of our premise. There are two different forms of this statement.
a) Strong form: In order to criticize Fischer, one must be able to explain or replicate his accomplishments. But we can assume the critic can't do this.
b) Weak form: One's criticism must be consistent with Fischer's accomplishments. But this is impossible to know, since the action that is being criticized can be a component of Fischer's success.

4. Conclusion: The criticism is contradictory (i.e. #1 and #3 contradict), so it is foolish to criticize Fischer.

Explicit:
I hated sentential logic.  :(

Ender:
I think the same argument would apply to Britney Spears.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page