In lectures and talks that I have attended/watched, I've noticed a propensity to use the term "move" when describing the primary driving force behind an argument. In context, it might sound like:

"So is your main move xyz?"

if one were clarifying a point. I was just curious what the origins of the term were, e.g. where it was seen utilized, or perhaps who coined it. I've been unable to find anything on the topic, so any suggestions as to where to look would be sincerely appreciated. I don't think it currently "belongs" to any one university, as I've heard it used from profs at the University of Chicago, as well as people like Daniel Dennett who I believed finished Harvard and later Oxford.

It seems to me that this use of language should be somehow 'wrong' because logical arguments aren't chess games or chess pieces. Why does this happen? Why is it that philosophers use terms like "move' that aren't literally true in their discourse?

In lectures and talks that I have attended/watched, I've noticed a propensity to use the term "move" when describing the primary driving force behind an argument. In context, it might sound like:

"So is your main move xyz?"

if one were clarifying a point. I was just curious what the origins of the term were, e.g. where it was seen utilized, or perhaps who coined it. I've been unable to find anything on the topic, so any suggestions as to where to look would be sincerely appreciated. I don't think it currently "belongs" to any one university, as I've heard it used from profs at the University of Chicago, as well as people like Daniel Dennett who I believed finished Harvard and later Oxford.

It seems to me that this use of language should be somehow 'wrong' because logical arguments aren't chess games or chess pieces. Why does this happen? How do philosophers of language explain the fact that we use terms like "move' that aren't literally true in their discourse?

In lectures and talks that I have attended/watched, I've noticed a propensity to use the term "move" when describing the primary driving force behind an argument. In context, it might sound like:

"So is your main move xyz?"

if one were clarifying a point. I was just curious what the origins of the term were, e.g. where it was seen utilized, or perhaps who coined it. I've been unable to find anything on the topic, so any suggestions as to where to look would be sincerely appreciated. I don't think it currently "belongs" to any one university, as I've heard it used from profs at the University of Chicago, as well as people like Daniel Dennett who I believed finished Harvard and later Oxford.

Thank you in advance for any insights you all might have.

In lectures and talks that I have attended/watched, I've noticed a propensity to use the term "move" when describing the primary driving force behind an argument. In context, it might sound like:

"So is your main move xyz?"

if one were clarifying a point. I was just curious what the origins of the term were, e.g. where it was seen utilized, or perhaps who coined it. I've been unable to find anything on the topic, so any suggestions as to where to look would be sincerely appreciated. I don't think it currently "belongs" to any one university, as I've heard it used from profs at the University of Chicago, as well as people like Daniel Dennett who I believed finished Harvard and later Oxford.

It seems to me that this use of language should be somehow 'wrong' because logical arguments aren't chess games or chess pieces. Why does this happen? Why is it that philosophers use terms like "move' that aren't literally true in their discourse?