Right. I honestly didn’t see anything philosophical at all in the interview at all. It’s a political piece, not an academic exploration.

An idea is presented but there is no actual argument present in this interview. There are many “shoulds” “coulds” and “woulds” and it’s mainly a lengthy statement of controversial social justice-esque talking points without presence of any real supporting arguments.

Has anyone read her book? Does it contain any content that supports her claims at all? The only useful or interesting part of the dialogue was the raising of epistemological questions asking how do we know what it means to be a man/woman etc. which she didn’t answer or explore more, disappointingly so.

For someone so decorated and from prestigious institutions, I expected a lot more. It just reads as political feminist ideological fluff.

Sorry. I missed some punctuation and appear to have misled you.

I do agree with you however. My response was a bit knee jerk, on reflection. Understanding games is not the same as blindly playing them.

I have always enjoyed simulation games and my comment refers to them specifically, but on reflection I do feel that understanding the games, involves understanding their limitations.

There is no game that can simulate the infinite creativity within the universe. If it could, all would have already been revealed. And surely we'd all be emjoying the good life, right now.

But what is this "good life" that you want to live? Is it morally good? spiritually? financially? I'd say living the good life is being free to express yourself, creatively. Simulation games do not facilitate this, but you wouldn't know it unless you were creative enough to test it's limitations.

In conclusion, I would ask "Is it not necessary to be already living the good life, in order to understand games?

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

Hi everyone. Thus is a a short delve into my uneducated opinion on existentialism. I wanted to get some feedback on the flaws in my argument so far so that I can look for a deeper meaning so heres what I'm up to.

Short recap: existentialism is essentially the search for reason in the universe. This usually leads to the conflict of human desire for reason against the universe's chaotic nature. I would however reason that there was no human need for reason in the first place, and rather that the search for reason is societal. This is all of course a search to come up with a reason not to do things that religions or social codes would consider immoral (suicide, disobeying social standards, being a bystander or causing crimes).

I instead offer the idea that humans are also a part of nature, simply being coincidences of probability. However, humans do have their base instincts which manifest in dopamine, and other chemicals. That brings us to the idea that the search for self actualization is the search for the most positive chemicals, including curiosity.

Alternatively a more Buddhist approach would not be dissimilar, as it too searches for the most positive chemicals via rather than sating the hunger as I propose, starving it out.

Please let me know if the philosophy that I suggested already exists. I would love to learn more about it. Thanks for reading!

Agreed. But such a community will not be conducive for the wealthy, powerful, and demagogues. Hence the current state of affairs of the world.

>ending all arguments about why anybody does anything at all

Had me until here. I realize this is probably hyperbole, but despite whatever difficulties arise, we absolutely must have debates about why people do big, important things at the very least. The joy of games may explain why some people are selfish in how they think about their actions (i.e. they see their actions as fundamentally good, as you say), and that is an obstacle to arguing about why people do things, but we humans have to be able to make responsible large-scale decisions on nuanced topics. Without debating how exactly to proceed on those large-scale decisions, that is utterly impossible in practice.

[removed]

> "the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles."

What is the obstacle to overcome in Minecraft Creative Mode?

Never not relevant

I couldn't agree more. Are you even living if you live a life of no games?

For the vast majority, I think everything is done out of, in part, selfish reasons. The actions done however vary widely in wholesomeness. To flourish in the act of giving one’s own life to serve other beings is, I think, of maximum wholesomeness.

It is also possible to have a sense of self but not be limited to it.

[deleted]

Not to mention the bounds of what a "winning" condition looks like.

[removed]

A comment about a couple of tangential points.

First, I find reducing all developments in history due to just desire too narrow. Honor or duty don't fit well there. Fear or lack of imagination either. Also, isn't calling the social agreement 'social happiness' a bit too forced?

Also, the statement that the west is not aware of what China represents as a different sociopolitical model is surprising. Why would he say that? Actually, what does he mean? What is he implying western countries should be doing?

[removed]

Is that true?

[removed]

You are right, I shot it off the hip and I stand corrected

I agree, we must eliminate the notion of tops and bottoms. Everyone should switch it up in 2023

I really can't say if those suggestions are good or not.

I'm half black and half white and found those books very helpful.

If I could suggest some other books that I believe really helped me....

Up from slavery by Booker at Washington. I was Transformed, about Frederick Douglas. Rich Dad poor Dad, by Robert Kywasaki(can't spell his name). And Think rich grow rich, by napoleon Hill.

If I read those books as a young man, my life would have been much different.

Think rich grow rich, might arguably be a fraud, but the underlying message is sound. "You only fail if you quit."

If you never give up, you will succeed, the best message you can ever instill in anyone. Every champion is made from it.

I don't think we disagree, I think I failed in my explanation.

I would never be so bold as to claim, "God is dead." Or that metaphysics suffer death either.

I see the conception of irrational as something of a burden.

That which cannot fit reason, evades all our calculations in search for reason.

It is the very disregard of irrationality that clouds our basis for questioning.

If every line of questioning leads us to an impossible conclusion, perhaps we are poisoning our reason with faulty data.

To assume shadows must be cast by figures without clear evidence, apriori stands to reason.

Why? We must have prior understanding of light, shadow, figures etc.

I'm not questioning that which stands to reason; I'm suggesting that we are assuming reason from a fundamental factor never questioned.

Is the assumption of a start to all, backed by any evidence other than anecdotal—we started therefore the universe did—or the fact we subjectively have only known existence, proof existence is all that exists.

Unless we can end our existence to prove we can't exist, then return to existence and declare, "ah ha!" Is it not sound to assume existence is the norm?

The endless search to discover how or why the universe begun, is like shining light on the dark to prove the dark doesn't exist.

Nothing cannot exist unless something exists.

To assume the universe, or God started it all, is a failure to grasp the irrational truth of rationale.

I've only recently started reading Nietzsche. I have so much more to read. The more I seem to open my eyes to, the more I realise I am blind to.

This hypocrisy is abundant in everything. As I struggle through Nietzsche's beyond good and evil, he seems to highlight the truth in this phenomena.

Assumption in what must be true, distracts us from real truth.

Truth hides between desire and illusion.

The little I've read of Nietzsche so far, I definitely feel less anxious in life.