Posts by ruggedraven36

To actually talk about your dreams, you first have to wake up. Same goes for this whole obsession with the virtual world—you can play around in there while you still have one foot in reality. But honestly? It’s entirely possible that one day you just won't wake up from the simulation, and you'll simply fade away into nothingness.

steelridge58 said:

Philosophical Investigations into what is a video game

So, what actually is what is a video game? What are we really doing when we sit down to play one, and honestly, where is the actual value in all of this?
How does philosophy even find its way into the code of these games?

I figure since there are so many different branches of philosophy trying to tackle these kinds of questions, we might as well try our hand at it here too.

Looking back at the first two decades of the 21st century, the massive explosion in tech and the gaming industry itself has paved the way for a whole new category of speculative and reflective games—titles specifically designed for players looking for something a bit more intellectually stimulating. Modern culture has already started to embrace these virtual worlds and digital simulations as legitimate, and often preferred, alternatives to traditional media formats.

There’s this fascinating question raised in an essay by the Italian philosopher Stefano Gualeni regarding whether these worlds—both through their self-reflective qualities and as standalone environments—can be understood as philosophical artifacts. He suggests that we can fruitfully explore, and maybe even answer, this by looking at philosophy through its core mission: directing thought toward examining the very validity and possibilities of thought itself.

In a similar vein, philosophers of language have spent ages trying to weigh the validity and accuracy of using language—specifically text—to frame and convey thoughts, leaning on the old idea that language, especially the written word, holds a privileged, if not exclusive, relationship with how we think.

One of the early 20th-century thinkers who really pushed back against that unquestioned link between thinking and writing was Ludwig Wittgenstein.

From that viewpoint, you could argue that focusing solely on linguistic ways to mediate thought shows a certain numbness in Western philosophy; it fails to account for the specific constraints that this particular medium imposes on the flow of arguments and ideas, which ultimately leaves philosophers somewhat ill-equipped to appreciate the fun, untapped potential of alternative ways to communicate philosophical thought.

So, once we recognize those inherent limits of relying on language alone to carry thought, 21st-century philosophers have this incredible opportunity—through game design and the interactive experiences of virtual worlds—to challenge the long-held assumption that written discourse is the only context where philosophical thought can emerge and grow.
The notion that virtual worlds could be accepted as interactive arguments, academic outputs, or critical artifacts isn't some new fad; it's been firmly rooted for at least a decade now.
And if philosophizing within and through virtual worlds has already opened up new ways of thinking and new avenues of research, then I think we should open up the conversation ourselves:
- what is the greatest potential in the alliance between video games and philosophy?

addx? 😉)

It’s just a game run through software built into a computer.

What are we actually doing while playing?

We feed input data to the program via physical movement—think controller buttons or mouse clicks—and our senses pick up the output, which lets us manage all those interactive elements that depend on us.

Is there any actual value in playing games?

Video games are worthless. Honestly, they’re pretty bad for kids—they pull them away from real-world play and everything else matters too.

Where does philosophy fit into video games?

Nowhere.

Ethan Gomez82 said:That sounds profound, yet it’s utterly hollow. If we actually managed to strip away every external influence, there wouldn't be much left of us at all. You wouldn't even have an opinion on "societal issues," because every single one of those takes root through outside forces, blends with our personal "psychological assets"—like temperament and character—and ultimately shapes who we are. Without those external layers, there is no stance; a spirit "liberated" from everything would just be a shallow, empty shell. There is always something from the outside driving our perspectives; without that input, thinking itself ceases to exist. To me, this whole idea of a liberated spirit feels fake. It’s really just saying: I'll unhook myself from one influence just to latch onto another (or more accurately, the second one is simply stronger and knocks the first one aside).

Exactly. But let's be clear—getting rid of censorship isn't the same thing as shedding influence. Not every bit of influence is an act of censorship.

jadeheron5 said:Maybe things would click for you if you used the American term for "principle"—you know, a core set of values. Everything you do should be guided by some sort of underlying principle, unless, of course, you're just a complete lunatic acting entirely at random without any rhyme or reason.
Without a foundational principle, you don't even have a starting point from which to actually think or build an argument.
So, when you claim that only fools stick to principles, you’ve actually got it backward. Fools have weak principles—that's precisely why they're fools.

Take what you wrote earlier, about how an ox is judged by its horns while a man is judged by his word. Just think about that for a second. What kind of man can you actually hold to his word? Can you really hold a fool to his word?
It's a stretch...

At the end of the day, someone with solid principles is usually quite careful about making promises. Meanwhile, a fool will promise the moon to anyone who asks, and I think that's exactly the point of the old saying.

There’s no such thing as that kind of lunatic. Nobody just wanders through life acting totally at random—well, maybe when they're picking numbers for a Powerball ticket, but that's about it.

Marcuse argues that at the heart of all intellectual pursuits—philosophy included—is the fundamental assumption that human life is actually worth living, and more importantly, that it *can* be made worth living. I’m with him on that one.

Joseph Murphy10 said:This whole idea about "self-nullification"—it just hit me out of nowhere—totally ungrounded and without any real scholarly backing. I know it’s raw and probably pretty hollow. Honestly, when I lay this out, I’ll likely get mocked or torn apart, but whatever—let it be.

So, here’s the thing: you see more and more articles, even entire books, where philosophers are basically flirting with cognitive psychologists, biologists, and scientific positivists. They’re all dancing around this notion that humans are essentially just algorithms—just a collection of determinants shaped by evolutionary cognitive baggage on one hand, biochemical processes and hormone swings on the other, and then our specific placement within this messy web of shifting social discourses on the third. It’s all very interconnected..
And look, the philosophers play nice with the positivist scientists—they piece these concepts together perfectly, interpreting and spinning them in ways that look great on paper. But I can't shake the feeling that by following this path of pure scientific positivism, they’re drifting further away from what makes philosophy actually *philosophy*. Their job should be studying and interpreting Being in a purely metaphysical sense—something stripped of the everyday grind that sociologists, psychologists, or political scientists are supposed to handle. If philosophers sign off on the idea that humans are totally determined by evolution, that we're predictable creatures who *should* be subject to biomedical interventions just to make us more predictable, more efficient, or more "useful" to society—then that’s it. It's the end of philosophy as we know it. Once you kill metaphysics in its traditional sense, you kill philosophy too. That’s my little point regarding what I wrote above. Again, this is just an intuitive, raw thought I’m typing up on the fly. Probably worth nothing.

Part of this line of thinking comes from Metamorphosis, works by Smith, Eagleton, a bit of Varoufakis and Pfaller, plus Mason, Žižek, Murray, Yuval Harari, Torre, and even a young Bregman... they’ve all left some mark on me. That's why I'm so confused, and why I mapped out the path detailed in my first comment on this topic—I need to reorganize everything in my head and find where it all fits. I see what's rolling in from over the horizon, and I think a lot of people aren't realizing what's coming—or they're just brushing it off. To me, this looks like a fundamental shift that demands serious attention. Our job is to protect the specific dignity of the human being as a unique form of life.

Thread taken from the book recommendation for philosophy beginners - Volver
- Volver

👍 I couldn't agree more. That’s the end of philosophy right there. And since you can't have a civilization without philosophy, we might as well prepare for the end of civilization too.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Because they carry weight—at least for people with a shred of integrity—and because they create anticipation —especially when you're talking about children—promises shouldn't be made unless a person is absolutely certain they can follow through.
But then again, can anyone ever truly be 100% certain about anything?

To me, a promise is more an expression of good intentions than a guarantee of results; its value lies in the sentiment rather than the eventual execution. We have no way of knowing what unforeseen circumstances might derail us. No one can actually guarantee the future, not even prophets.

What I find most ironic is that the Bible itself advises against making oaths or swearing by anything at all (Mt 5:34). Yet, despite that, American culture is saturated with various forms of commitments and vows; in fact, much of our social structure is built upon them.😁

Promises aren't oaths. Sure, we can't be 100% certain when we make them, but nobody expects that. What's expected is that we try hard enough to follow through—that we actually care about keeping our word. That’s why there’s even a sense of anticipation in it, precisely because there's no absolute guarantee. An absolute guarantee would kill any sense of joy.

Harold Doyle3 said:More like a proverb for animals that actually believe in promises.

Nietzsche was getting at the idea that being able to make a promise is what sets humans apart—it’s what pulls us out of just being another biological organism. It’s about trust, sure, but also that ability to look forward to something, or even the sting of disappointment when things fall through. If we couldn't find joy in a promise, we wouldn't have love, friendship, or any kind of organized society. Without that, we're just back to square one. That's why people call the phrase "a fool's errand" a way of life for those who take words too seriously. That's how Nietzsche would frame it—and honestly, I'm with him on this one.

Harold Doyle3 said:Making a promise? That’s just asking for trouble.

Just more nonsense for the simpletons.

Sandra Murphy33 said:No.

A principle is just a rule someone imposes on themselves for some arbitrary reason, only to cling to it stubbornly—usually when it makes absolutely no sense and defies all logic.
It’s essentially a grotesque distortion of the idea that a person should be "as good as their word" (rather than being led around by the ears like a mule😎).
The actual point of that old adage is to serve as a warning: watch what you say. Don't make promises you can't keep, don't overextend yourself, and don't commit to things lightly.

Nietzsche once noted that a human being should be defined as an animal capable of making promises.

Amanda Jackson5 said:"Quote"

It’s not even that strange when you think about it; it’s actually just textbook "ordinary" thinking, which is exactly how Hegel describes that typical, everyday mindset. Every philosopher worth their salt has always understood that being someone is far more significant than simply having things, yet in the common world, people tend to flip that logic entirely on its head. It’s also pretty standard for ordinary thought to swap out genuine wisdom for a quick dose of cynicism. Honestly, if we started listing all the ways this happens, we’d be here all day.

I get that—when I called it "unusual," I didn't mean it was rare or out of the norm; I just meant it felt stupid.

Amanda Jackson5 said:We could probably just touch upon this briefly, without getting bogged down in a deep dive, but it’s worth noting that pretty much every philosopher throughout history has recognized how truth and goodness are fundamentally intertwined. Take Plato, for instance; he argued in his work on the republic that the Good serves as both the source and the ultimate goal of all knowledge. Then you have Aristotle, who maintained that everything naturally gravitates toward what is good, essentially defining "good" as that which is desirable. If we want to take a page out of Wittgenstein’s book, we might say a "good" knife is simply one that functions as a true knife—it actually fulfills the very concept of what a knife is supposed to be. Even in Scholastic metaphysics, there was this idea that if something exists, it is inherently good; goodness was considered one of those four transcendental properties of being, alongside oneness, truth, and beauty.

Now, that would be an interesting topic. If almost every philosopher ever has realized that truth and goodness are linked, then it’s pretty weird how many people today don't just ignore that connection, but actually go out of their way to deny it.

Ethan Gomez82 said:There you go again, beating the same old drum. Why should I care about how people defined "sages" in some bygone era? We don't even talk about "sages" anymore; that's just intellectual archaeology, and frankly, neither do I. I’m talking about wisdom and wise individuals, not those ancient "sages." They're dinosaurs—an extinct species that hasn't been relevant for ages.

So you're distinguishing between wise people and "sages"? You think sages aren't actually wise?

The truth is, you aren't even talking about wisdom or wise people. Being smart, being crafty, being street-smart—even having a massive amount of knowledge—doesn't equal wisdom. Not individually, and certainly not combined. Whether it was fifty years ago or right now, you can't call someone wise if they have technical intellect but zero moral backbone. Kindness and humanity aren't optional extras when it comes to wisdom—unless we're just making up our own definitions to suit ourselves.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:If I’m following this correctly, the fact that there's empty space between an atom's nucleus and its shell is a fact—but it isn't "human truth." It exists regardless of whether we're around to see it. No person, no matter how brilliant or in what era, is ever going to actually experience or directly perceive that void. All we really know is the space and time that our own subjective experience layers on top of it.

Wisdom is basically just trying to think objectively about things that are inherently subjective, like ethics or perception.

At least, that's my take. When I dive into philosophy, certain arguments just feel timeless, no matter how much time passes.

The second you label something as "truth," you've made a deduction. Every single truth is just a conclusion—period. You can't separate it from the act of concluding, nor the person doing the thinking.

Truth requires perception. There’s no such thing as truth just existing out there in a vacuum. Labeling some insight as "human truth" doesn't change anything—it just proves that we actually have the capacity to perceive it in the first place.

Ethan Gomez82 said:I’m not even talking about human truths or how we construct them. I’m talking about much larger truths that exist far beyond us—truths that simply *are*. We can only catch glimpses of them from a distance using various tools. Human truths are inherently limited by our own flaws, and frankly, they shouldn't be taken too seriously.

I have absolutely no clue what you’re getting at here. First off, what does "human truth" even mean? Using the word "human" doesn't imply any specific quality—it just points to who owns it. Second, what kind of truths are these that just "exist"? Even if we ignore the philosophical headache of what that actually implies, wouldn't it be more logical to call them "smaller" truths if they simply *are*? Third—and this is the big one—what ethical standard are you using to decide that "human truths" shouldn't be taken seriously? If "goodness" has nothing to do with truth, like you claimed earlier, then how on earth do you know what deserves to be taken seriously in the first place?

Ethan Gomez82 said:Hardly.

We should probably start by defining what wisdom isn't. It certainly isn't drawing connections where none exist, nor is it failing to see connections that clearly do. People tend to trip over both mistakes. As for what wisdom actually *is*, we can't even begin to discuss it until we agree on a definition—which, let’s be honest, is nearly impossible. Some link it to knowledge and deep insight, others to ethics, and so on. Let everyone hold their own opinion; there's no point splitting hairs when we already know we won't reach an agreement and will just end up shouting our own monologues at each other.

We don't need to sit around "agreeing on a definition." You can't separate deep insight from ethics—it's impossible. Just look at anyone throughout history who was actually considered wise; they all shared the same core. Every single one of them was viewed as both a good person and an expert on the things that actually matter. Wisdom is simply where theory meets practice—where the truth aligns with what's good.

jadeheron5 said:I’d argue differently... I think a wise person is simply a righteous one. You see, you can be "too good"—just purely kindhearted without any edge—but if you're just a pushover, you aren't really wise.

Look, a good person doesn't necessarily have to be wise, but a wise person? They damn well better be good.

A sage has always been seen as a good person, regardless of the era or culture. So, saying wisdom has nothing to do with empathy? That’s just plain wrong.

says:
Or what?

Everything.