“And what are the rules? Ask me and I will strike you because you are not looking; I will have decapitated you without your knowing. One can try to formulate obscure theories to avoid playing the game or one can play the game to win.”
– Daniel Kolak, Wittgenstein’s Tractatus: Translator’s Preface
(Mind, I love formulating obscure theories. Which is perhaps why I also love this quote—because it’s such a necessary reminder to myself at times.)
I took “formulate obscure theories to avoid playing the game” as anti-epistemology, and “one can play the game to win” as instrumental rationality. You could convincingly argue that you need to formulate, test, and confirm extremely not-obscure (clear? obvious?) theories to avoid losing.
“And what are the rules? Ask me and I will strike you because you are not looking; I will have decapitated you without your knowing. One can try to formulate obscure theories to avoid playing the game or one can play the game to win.”
– Daniel Kolak, Wittgenstein’s Tractatus: Translator’s Preface
(Mind, I love formulating obscure theories. Which is perhaps why I also love this quote—because it’s such a necessary reminder to myself at times.)
Isn’t this an anti-rationality quote?
I took “formulate obscure theories to avoid playing the game” as anti-epistemology, and “one can play the game to win” as instrumental rationality. You could convincingly argue that you need to formulate, test, and confirm extremely not-obscure (clear? obvious?) theories to avoid losing.
It does not seem to be. It seems to be instrumental rationality along the lines of Prince or ‘Laws of Power’.