I think it would be more accurate to use the word “opponent” or “adversary”. It’s not unusual to be in some kind of contest with someone else—you use the example of chess yourself. But that doesn’t make someone your enemy.
“Enemy” AFAIK strongly suggests hostility / seeking to harm, which is not true for chess nor for most policy disagreements. Important distinction!
(I’m usually less pedantic about word choice, but this essay is centrally about the use of the word “enemy”, so it seemed appropriate).
While Chess is clearly about adversariality, the central examples I care about (most notably politics and policy disagreements) are in fact about enmity.
It is in great part because enmity is more durable. A Chess game is bounded in time, you have the expectation to close the game soon.
Whereas Greenpeace is a durable enemy. Part of its identity is to be anti-nuke. Most likely, as long as it will exist, it will be anti-nuke.
Similarly, AGI corps will be enemies until they build ASI or get durably prevented from doing so.
I think it’s also partly that in practice, enmity, this type of durable adversariality, does involve hostility. When someone tries to durably undermine you and your endeavours, and when you try to durably undermine them, it’s hard to maintain a cordial relationship.
In “Beyond Enmity”, I gesture at ways to maintain a durable adversarial relationship, with less hostility. But I do explain that it is predicated on the ability to actually engage in enmity.
If a nerd thinks they are in a durable adversarial relationship, they are most likely coping, and they are losing, getting trounced by an opponent who is considering the full enmity of the situation.
I think it would be more accurate to use the word “opponent” or “adversary”. It’s not unusual to be in some kind of contest with someone else—you use the example of chess yourself. But that doesn’t make someone your enemy.
“Enemy” AFAIK strongly suggests hostility / seeking to harm, which is not true for chess nor for most policy disagreements. Important distinction!
(I’m usually less pedantic about word choice, but this essay is centrally about the use of the word “enemy”, so it seemed appropriate).
While Chess is clearly about adversariality, the central examples I care about (most notably politics and policy disagreements) are in fact about enmity.
It is in great part because enmity is more durable. A Chess game is bounded in time, you have the expectation to close the game soon.
Whereas Greenpeace is a durable enemy. Part of its identity is to be anti-nuke. Most likely, as long as it will exist, it will be anti-nuke.
Similarly, AGI corps will be enemies until they build ASI or get durably prevented from doing so.
I think it’s also partly that in practice, enmity, this type of durable adversariality, does involve hostility. When someone tries to durably undermine you and your endeavours, and when you try to durably undermine them, it’s hard to maintain a cordial relationship.
In “Beyond Enmity”, I gesture at ways to maintain a durable adversarial relationship, with less hostility. But I do explain that it is predicated on the ability to actually engage in enmity.
If a nerd thinks they are in a durable adversarial relationship, they are most likely coping, and they are losing, getting trounced by an opponent who is considering the full enmity of the situation.