Posts by Harold Doyle3

test

steelridge58 said:We already shook hands on the idea at the very start that there aren't any restrictions here, and honestly, since everything is running so smoothly just the way it is, I really don't see any reason why we should go changing a single thing.

Well... I guess that means we don't have to worry about "writing too much."

steelridge58 said:Back when I was at the University of Chicago, we used to have this
"Philosophical Inquiry Contest" that actually pulled in quite a crowd back in the day. I’ve been thinking lately that maybe we could bring it back, though definitely with a fresh spin on things.

So, here is my pitch for a new theme:

Judging the best response
(to those deep, heavy philosophical questions)

The ground rules would basically be
- try to keep your answers short and punchy—you know, where you say a lot without using a million words.
Also, if you feel like someone else’s quote captures the essence of your thought better than your own words ever could, feel free to use that quote as your answer, just make sure to credit the source.

We’d set a seven-day deadline for submissions, and once that's up, we’ll move straight into voting and some good old-fashioned debate.

What do you all think? Are you leaning toward a "yes" or a "no" on this idea?

Hey steelridge58, some people have already started turning these into long-winded essays instead of sticking to the prompt... what if we set a limit, say 99 characters?
As it stands, it feels like you're performing at Eurovision with a hundred different acts and a song as long as a Wagnerian opera.

Question:

If absolutely nobody else bothers to reply to the topic question except me, does that mean I win by default? Even if I don't get a single vote? (Not that I could vote for myself anyway)

Because division, conflict, and constant competition are actually the only ways we ever reach true unity, cooperation, and solidarity.

steelridge58 said:But if we did that, who on earth would bother coming up with a new question in the first place?

Should we hold a vote on that too?
😁 🙂))

The guy whose answer would show up in the top three most often.

There ought to be a choice of the three right answers... then we can see whether you actually voted for yourself or not.

I’d honestly say we should start voting for the absolute worst answer too.

steelridge58 said:Maybe we should switch to a two-week cycle for the next round, and instead of just this quick two-day window, we could set aside three or four days for voting to make it easier on everyone.

Amanda Jackson5 actually brought up a question in the Comment section about whether someone is allowed to vote for themselves, though I honestly haven't a clue myself.
I’d really love to get your take on this—what do you all think?
If we all decide that self-voting is okay, then I'll go ahead and update the rules, but if not, we can just leave everything exactly as it stands now.

Just give everyone an extra vote and call it a day. Problem solved.

Humans are social creatures by design, so it’s just common sense to live like it. Basically, don't go around doing things to other people that you wouldn't want them doing to you.

Reopening the chat with Jednostavka and Sigmund just to have leteći barge right in

Joseph Murphy10 said:You can spot a real leader by how they talk—straightforward, no fluff, just plain English.

Or by his silence.

A wise man is more of a philosophical practitioner than some armchair theorist.

Amanda Jackson5 said:If we’re talking about pure philosophy, I’d argue we need to head back to Hegel rather than the Pre-Socratics. Think of Hegel as having performed the final great philosophical synthesis, effectively drawing a line under everything that came before him—including those early thinkers. Once you pass Hegel, there isn't much left to say that carries any real substance. You can certainly keep philosophizing, sure, but you're really just using that highly refined toolkit he left behind, where logic, metaphysics, and ontology all blend into one seamless machine.

Pure philosophy is like pure existence—it’s Nothingness.

It’s like a pristine, sterile kitchen; if you insist on keeping it perfectly clean, you’re going to end up starving.

TOTAL NONSENSE!

lonegardener said:How Path of Exile players gear up for a new season:



🤣 🤣

😁

lonegardener said:That’s certainly an 'optimistic' take on the phenomenon, and I suspect many people see it that way.

However, for others, 'satisfying' those impulses might actually lead to desensitization. It creates a habit of acting on every impulse, which could increase the likelihood of someone trying to fulfill those same urges in the real world. 😬

I wouldn't say this effect hits everyone the same way, though.

Personally, I think we have to account for basic human laziness.
Reality is much more intense, and frankly, most people aren't ready for that... I'd venture to say only the truly warped individuals actually follow through with those impulses in real life, and even then, they're rare.
Basically, for those living on the edge, a digital simulation serves a social purpose—it vents their frustrations so they don't feel the need to act them out in person.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Or maybe just self-denial. 😉

As long as my keyboard is buried under a mountain of chip crumbs and sticky residue from lukewarm sodas, I don't have to worry about any kind of self-neglect.😉

steelridge58 said:What even is play, really? I find myself staring at the ceiling sometimes, wondering if we ever actually grasp the essence of what it means to just... play. Is it a distraction from the grind, or is it the only thing that actually makes us feel alive while we’re navigating this chaotic life? I don't have a neat, academic answer for you, but I can't help but feel like there's something much deeper happening when we let go of our responsibilities and just dive into something for the sake of it.
What exactly are we doing when we dive into a game?
What’s the actual point of playing games? I find myself wondering about this quite often, staring at my console and questioning if I'm just killing time or actually doing something meaningful with my life. Is there some deep, inherent value in immersing ourselves in these digital worlds, or am I just chasing a temporary dopamine hit to distract myself from the grind of reality? I honestly want to know what you all think—is it just mindless escapism, or is there something more profound happening when we lose ourselves in a story or a challenge?

I honestly can't help but feel like I’m constantly staring at some massive, unsolvable puzzle where half the pieces are missing and the other half don't even seem to belong to the same box, though I suppose that’s just life, isn't it? It feels like we spend all this energy trying to connect these complex dots—trying to make sense of everything from how our society functions to why we feel so disconnected from one another—only to realize that the picture we were aiming for might have been a total illusion all along. I know I tend to overthink things and probably ramble on more than I should, but there’s just this persistent, nagging sensation that if we could only find that one missing fragment of understanding, everything would finally click into place, even if my clumsy attempts at solving it usually just end up making a bigger mess of things. kaže:
Technology is moving at such a breakneck pace these days, and honestly, it feels like gaming is migrating entirely into this realm of true virtual reality through these specialized headsets. It brings up this one deeply philosophical concept called "presence," which is basically just a fancy way of describing that specific level of immersion where a player becomes so completely swallowed up by the artificial world that you start losing track of where the game ends and your actual life begins.

This provides such an incredible foundation for some deeper philosophical digging, so I’ll definitely jump back into the conversation once I can carve out a little more breathing room in my schedule.

I’ve been sitting here thinking about how much we tend to overcomplicate things when the simplest answer is usually staring us right in the face, almost like we’re trying to outsmart our own intuition just for the sake of it. It’s funny, really—how we can spend hours debating the most complex theories or getting lost in all this dense, academic jargon, only to realize that the core truth was actually quite plain and straightforward all along. I sometimes catch myself doing this too, getting caught up in my own head and making mountains out of molehills, but I suppose that’s just part of being human, isn't it? We want everything to be profound and layered, yet there's a certain honest beauty in just keeping it simple and being direct about what we mean. kaže:
Honestly, this whole topic really does carry some weight, so if you're looking for a starting point, it might be wise to dig into an early paper by Marija Selak from back when she was still a young PhD student; she did some fascinating work on this exact subject by weaving together the philosophies of Nikolai Berdyaev and Martin Heidegger.

Maybe this might actually encourage some of you dear friends to dig a little deeper than just our usual surface-level distractions and tackle that one massive, heavy-hitting relationship that essentially dictates our entire reality—though, if I’m being honest, it’s already been pulling all the strings behind the scenes for quite some time—which is, fundamentally, that profound philosophical connection between man and... I’ve been sitting here thinking about the whole concept of *episteme*—you know, that deep, foundational kind of knowledge that goes way beyond just knowing a few random facts or being able to pass a test. It’s that structural understanding of how things actually work, the kind that shapes how we see the world before we even realize we're looking at it. I sometimes feel like I'm constantly stumbling through the dark trying to grasp it, feeling a bit foolish because while most people seem to be navigating life with such certainty, I'm still over here questioning the very ground I'm standing on. It's a heavy thing to wrap your head around, honestly, but there's something so incredibly vital about trying to reach that level of clarity, even if it feels like an uphill battle most days. i I’ve been spending way too much time lately thinking about the concept of *techne*, that old-school idea of craftsmanship and practical wisdom, and honestly, I can't stop circling back to it. It feels like we’re living in this era where everything is so automated and frictionless that we’ve completely lost touch with the actual soul of making things—that deep, intuitive connection between the creator and the work itself. You know, that specific kind of knowledge that isn't just following a manual or a set of algorithms, but is something you feel in your hands and your gut. I was reading some stuff recently that reminded me how easily we mistake mere technical efficiency for true mastery, and it’s a little humbling to realize how much of our modern "skill" is really just knowing which buttons to press on a piece of software. There’s such a profound difference between being a proficient user of a tool and actually possessing the *techne* to command it, and I think we’re all feeling a bit adrift because of that gap. It’s a bit embarrassing to admit, but I definitely find myself staring at my own projects sometimes, wondering if I’m actually building anything meaningful or if I'm just going through the motions of a highly optimized process.

I was reading through this academic paper on linguistic structures, and honestly, it’s one of those deep dives that really makes you question how much we take our own way of speaking for granted. It explores the intricacies of how language shapes our perception of reality—that classic idea that the tools we use to communicate actually build the world we live in. It’s pretty heavy stuff, looking at how specific grammatical frameworks influence the way an individual processes thought, but there’s something deeply moving about the idea that we aren't just using language; we are being shaped by it every single day. I found myself sitting there for a good hour just staring at the screen, feeling slightly overwhelmed by the sheer complexity of it all, yet strangely comforted by the notion that our very consciousness is tied to these invisible linguistic threads. It definitely gives you a whole new perspective on why certain concepts feel so easy to express in one language but almost impossible to grasp in another.

I'll give it a read.
Thanks a million!

Look, it's better to play a war game in a digital world than to see actual combat in the real one. It's just how we satisfy that primal, almost childish urge inside us.
People end up happier because they can vent their frustrations through
video games, which honestly just cuts down on the collateral damage to society at large.
At its core, playing is just one more way for a person to figure out who they actually are.

ruggedraven36 said:Of course I am. That's exactly why I know video games don't have any actual value.

Personally, I think Tetris is a fantastic game with actual value.
I don't particularly care to spend my afternoon manually hauling concrete blocks or heavy stones just to stack them into a wall.
You can lecture me all you want about "building muscle" or "getting fresh air," but honestly? You’re more likely to end up with a massive sunburn than any kind of muscle mass.

ruggedraven36 said:I didn't just hear about them—I actually played them. I even spent some time coding them myself, first in assembly for the Intel 8080 and later in C++. Still, I’m glad my childhood was filled with actual, real-world games instead of just staring at a screen.

👍
Then you definitely understand that whole "spirit of the era": the Z80, those old galaxy shooters, the Commodore, the Atari...
The real question is how on earth you motivate the masses to dump money into this "newfangled" tech!
Some capitalist decided to lean into the whole "bread and circuses" strategy (with a heavy emphasis on the circuses").
Naturally, they bundled it with the promise of constant upgrades—both hardware and software—and then the madness started. You buy a graphics card in the morning, and by dinner, it's already obsolete and sluggish. Someone's constantly picking you off in an online match because your internet connection is garbage, leaving you frantically screaming, "Faster! Faster!"
Then some junk flies into your computer while you're distracted browsing adult sites or playing some sketchy poker game, and suddenly you're hunting for every antivirus, anti-trojan, anti-malware, and anti-scam tool imaginable just to "sanitize," "decontaminate," and "disinfect" your system.

Honestly, I think video games align perfectly with Hegelian philosophy.
You have: 1 - being
0 - non-being
From there, it's all down to the laws of dialectics (and the market), where quantity eventually transforms into quality, and vice versa.