I think, therefore I game: The philosophy of video games

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? 😉)

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.

I basically grew up in front of a computer screen. I don't really watch TV, I don't care much for music—it's just been nothing but virtual worlds for me, so I’m genuinely curious to hear what everyone thinks about this.

For anyone here who isn't exactly a gamer, here's a little snippet I wrote on another thread:

Anyway, technology is moving fast, and gaming is shifting toward full-blown VR through specialized headsets. It brings up this deep, almost philosophical concept of "presence"—basically, how deeply a player gets sucked into that artificial world and how hard it becomes to tell the difference from actual reality.

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.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:I basically grew up in front of a computer screen. I don't really watch TV, I don't care much for music—it's just been nothing but virtual worlds for me, so I’m genuinely curious to hear what everyone thinks about this.

For anyone here who isn't exactly a gamer, here's a little snippet I wrote on another thread:

Anyway, technology is moving fast, and gaming is shifting toward full-blown VR through specialized headsets. It brings up this deep, almost philosophical concept of "presence"—basically, how deeply a player gets sucked into that artificial world and how hard it becomes to tell the difference from actual reality.

Personally, I find myself wondering why I would ever need virtual reality when I already have actual reality. VR could perhaps serve as a small subset of experience, but nothing more. The world surrounding us is beautiful, complex, and endlessly diverse; one can spend a lifetime exploring and absorbing it. To reduce existence down to a virtual simulation feels like a fundamental impoverishment of life itself.

If we want to stay on the topic of philosophy, let's look at it through that lens.

Philosophy requires deep thought—the process of encountering foreign ideas through reading, reconciling them with one's own beliefs, refining those thoughts, and eventually arriving at new conclusions or stances. All of this demands contemplation. It requires peace and a lack of external distraction.

Virtual reality tends to divert the mind toward other stimuli. Much like film or music, it isn't really a medium designed for deep philosophical inquiry, even if there might be philosophical elements tucked away within it.

Sam Martinez9 said:Personally, I find myself wondering why I would ever need virtual reality when I already have actual reality. VR could perhaps serve as a small subset of experience, but nothing more. The world surrounding us is beautiful, complex, and endlessly diverse; one can spend a lifetime exploring and absorbing it. To reduce existence down to a virtual simulation feels like a fundamental impoverishment of life itself.

If we want to stay on the topic of philosophy, let's look at it through that lens.

Philosophy requires deep thought—the process of encountering foreign ideas through reading, reconciling them with one's own beliefs, refining those thoughts, and eventually arriving at new conclusions or stances. All of this demands contemplation. It requires peace and a lack of external distraction.

Virtual reality tends to divert the mind toward other stimuli. Much like film or music, it isn't really a medium designed for deep philosophical inquiry, even if there might be philosophical elements tucked away within it.

Look, it’s not about replacing reality. Honestly, plenty of gamers are way more active in the real world than anyone else. Think of VR as an extra layer of richness, kind of like reading a great book. These digital spaces let you experience things you simply can't do offline—like intense teamwork in games like Call of Duty, or diving into the whole competitive esports scene.

Quote:

Volver says: When you dig into this kind of stuff, language philosophers basically spend all their time trying to figure out if the way we frame and pass on thoughts through text actually works—relying on that old idea that language, especially writing, has this special, maybe even exclusive, link to how we think.

Too much of anything is bad, including video games, though I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with them.

When you talk about swapping "real" life for virtual worlds, even Slavoj Žižek mentioned how he’d escape the world by burying his nose in books as a kid. It's not just a video game or movie thing.

I don't have tons of free time for gaming lately since I'm stuck dealing with "real" life—you know, work, paying bills, and all that. Honestly, I'm not sure if this "real" reality is actually any better than gaming, but it's what I've got to do right now, lol.

If I manage to find a spare moment, though, I had my eye on this one on Steam, especially since Cyberpunk 2077 was such a massive letdown for me. 😁

Detroit: Become Human

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:Look, it’s not about replacing reality. Honestly, plenty of gamers are way more active in the real world than anyone else. Think of VR as an extra layer of richness, kind of like reading a great book. These digital spaces let you experience things you simply can't do offline—like intense teamwork in games like Call of Duty, or diving into the whole competitive esports scene.

Yeah, I get that—gaming is basically like reading a book or catching a movie. It's a productive way to kill time, for better or worse.

But what actually *is* a game, besides just being an easy way to have fun?

Sam Martinez9 said:Personally, I find myself wondering why I would ever need virtual reality when I already have actual reality. VR could perhaps serve as a small subset of experience, but nothing more. The world surrounding us is beautiful, complex, and endlessly diverse; one can spend a lifetime exploring and absorbing it. To reduce existence down to a virtual simulation feels like a fundamental impoverishment of life itself.

If we want to stay on the topic of philosophy, let's look at it through that lens.

Philosophy requires deep thought—the process of encountering foreign ideas through reading, reconciling them with one's own beliefs, refining those thoughts, and eventually arriving at new conclusions or stances. All of this demands contemplation. It requires peace and a lack of external distraction.

Virtual reality tends to divert the mind toward other stimuli. Much like film or music, it isn't really a medium designed for deep philosophical inquiry, even if there might be philosophical elements tucked away within it.

In that case, this forum is basically a virtual reality, and from what I can tell, you spend quite a few hours in it every single day... 😬

I suppose the "real world" isn't quite as perfect as you make it out to be, huh?

Besides, this meme seems pretty relevant:



🤣

ruggedraven36 said: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.

🤣 Honestly, you sound just like my dad, lol.

Look, there are all kinds of games out there. Aside from the mindless ones (though, let's face it, many aren't much different from an old-school arcade cabinet—does anyone else remember those?)—there are games that function literally like interactive novels. Just as books can explore complex ethical dilemmas, games take it a step further because you actually have to "make a choice" and then live with the consequences.

Plus, you have online games that rely heavily on player interaction, making them comparable to Twitter or even a discussion forum. You only need to check out a site like Twitch to see just how vibrant these communities can be.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:I basically grew up in front of a computer screen. I don't really watch TV, I don't care much for music—it's just been nothing but virtual worlds for me, so I’m genuinely curious to hear what everyone thinks about this.

For anyone here who isn't exactly a gamer, here's a little snippet I wrote on another thread:

Anyway, technology is moving fast, and gaming is shifting toward full-blown VR through specialized headsets. It brings up this deep, almost philosophical concept of "presence"—basically, how deeply a player gets sucked into that artificial world and how hard it becomes to tell the difference from actual reality.

So, in your case, virtual reality has basically become *real* reality. Your actual presence as an entity—including pretty much everything you do—reaches a point where you define yourself through it. You're in that virtual world with your thoughts, your body, and your soul.

That’s exactly why philosophy tackles this stuff; because this is the true reality for you (and millions of other young people—the ones who are actually building the future). If philosophy wants to stay relevant and actually interact with you and everyone else like you, it has to find a way to communicate—basically, it needs to bridge the gap between its own message and your experience.

Common sense tells us that people were "thinking" long before Thales of Miletus ever showed up. And they communicated those thoughts to the people around them. That’s why the invention of visual symbols—what we call writing—was such a massive leap forward compared to everything before it. The flow of thought didn't stop when writing appeared; it just adapted to it. What was "writing" yesterday might be some insane virtual animation tomorrow. Look at what we're doing right now: typing on laptops and communicating by staring at screens. What would the philosophers from back in the day have said if they saw this? They probably would've said the same thing as...

ruggedraven36 said: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.

Now, let's just swap out the premises for what I wrote above.
Replace "video games" with "cuneiform" or "information technology."

Hope that clicks.

Therefore,

ruggedraven36 said: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.

This sets up an imperative that is essentially a step backward compared to the speed at which the world is moving forward—even if the author realizes that...

ruggedraven36 said: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.

And then we can go back to whining about it—referencing that thread @volver started based on my post about self-nullification (which some kids called "quasi-philosophy" and told me to be ashamed of). Only now, we aren't just talking about philosophical self-nullification, but a much broader sense of human self-nullification. See, if a person fails to snap out of virtual reality and just disappears, they’re gone—effectively nullified. And since tech and technology are human inventions through and through, you could argue we basically nullified ourselves.

because...

If philosophy claims to have something useful to say about labor, workers, exploitation, capitalism, or socialism, how could it possibly have nothing to say about the human being? And I mean addressing the human in every aspect while actually respecting their ontological dignity—(that's another philosophy term I used in a previous post that some people clearly didn't grasp)

So yeah, the topic makes total sense. It might be smart to start by reading an early paper by a then-young PhD student, Maria Selak, who tackled this exact issue by blending the ideas of N. Berdyaev with Martin Heidegger...

Maybe that’ll nudge some of you lovely people to look beyond the prompt and dive into a massive relationship that dictates our entire reality—actually, it already dictates it (has always dictated it)—and that's the philosophical tension between episteme and techne

Amanda Flores88 said:Yeah, I get that—gaming is basically like reading a book or catching a movie. It's a productive way to kill time, for better or worse.

But what actually *is* a game, besides just being an easy way to have fun?

Video games offer so much more than just a way to kill time or unwind after a long day. They can actually be pretty useful tools for learning. Honestly, we’ve been seeing some incredibly deep, complex storytelling in gaming for a while now. And then you have those logic-heavy titles that really make you think. Sokoban. It really helps sharpen those mental muscles. It builds up your cognitive skills and all that good stuff. The Philosophy of Planescape: Torment

lonegardener said:🤣 Honestly, you sound just like my dad, lol.

Look, there are all kinds of games out there. Aside from the mindless ones (though, let's face it, many aren't much different from an old-school arcade cabinet—does anyone else remember those?)—there are games that function literally like interactive novels. Just as books can explore complex ethical dilemmas, games take it a step further because you actually have to "make a choice" and then live with the consequences.

Plus, you have online games that rely heavily on player interaction, making them comparable to Twitter or even a discussion forum. You only need to check out a site like Twitch to see just how vibrant these communities can be.

He was probably just giving you some friendly advice—basically saying it’s high time you find a real job once you actually land one. 😁

Amanda Flores88 said:Yeah, I get that—gaming is basically like reading a book or catching a movie. It's a productive way to kill time, for better or worse.

But what actually *is* a game, besides just being an easy way to have fun?

Not quite...

There are some seriously intense, even dangerous, and downright brutal games out there in this world.

I mean, look at reality TV—that’s just a specific type of "game," right? And they can be brutal and zero fun. They directly attack basic human dignity because people, lured by some prize, will jump through whatever hoops they have to. Those rules are often rigged to go against human nature—tapping into those low-level, primal instincts we all hide deep down, basically triggering the "beast" within us toward ourselves and everyone else..

The truth is, the American workforce has changed massively. That shift changed our habits and how we manage our time. Now, people have more free time than ever, which creates this huge problem: what do you actually *do* with it? How do you fill the void? Enter "games." We went from old-school pixelated stuff on the Atari 8 (man, those were the days) to incredibly sophisticated setups...

And most of them are built on blood, sweat, tears, killing, beating people up, and whatnot...

Now, let's take a massive leap forward here...

Picture a relatively young guy—someone who’s been deprived of real reading or actual human connection, raised in a radicalized, violent environment, someone who spent the vast majority of his life playing "games" where he "killed" countless "enemies." Now, try applying that logic to the real world.

Look, not everyone is as smart as those of us sitting here reading and typing. There are plenty of people out there who aren't particularly bright—people who experience some kind of injustice, or maybe just *perceive* it as an injustice, and suddenly decide to "take matters into their own hands." You can probably guess how that ends...

I’m going extreme here—I’m not blaming "games" entirely—but I am factoring them into how a personality is formed, alongside everything else sociology and psychology would look at.

Bottom line: games and video games aren't nearly as harmless as people usually think.

Gerald Jackson48 said:Video games offer so much more than just a way to kill time or unwind after a long day. They can actually be pretty useful tools for learning. Honestly, we’ve been seeing some incredibly deep, complex storytelling in gaming for a while now. And then you have those logic-heavy titles that really make you think. Sokoban. It really helps sharpen those mental muscles. It builds up your cognitive skills and all that good stuff. The Philosophy of Planescape: Torment

Joseph Murphy10 said:Not quite...

There are some seriously intense, even dangerous, and downright brutal games out there in this world.

I mean, look at reality TV—that’s just a specific type of "game," right? And they can be brutal and zero fun. They directly attack basic human dignity because people, lured by some prize, will jump through whatever hoops they have to. Those rules are often rigged to go against human nature—tapping into those low-level, primal instincts we all hide deep down, basically triggering the "beast" within us toward ourselves and everyone else..

The truth is, the American workforce has changed massively. That shift changed our habits and how we manage our time. Now, people have more free time than ever, which creates this huge problem: what do you actually *do* with it? How do you fill the void? Enter "games." We went from old-school pixelated stuff on the Atari 8 (man, those were the days) to incredibly sophisticated setups...

And most of them are built on blood, sweat, tears, killing, beating people up, and whatnot...

Now, let's take a massive leap forward here...

Picture a relatively young guy—someone who’s been deprived of real reading or actual human connection, raised in a radicalized, violent environment, someone who spent the vast majority of his life playing "games" where he "killed" countless "enemies." Now, try applying that logic to the real world.

Look, not everyone is as smart as those of us sitting here reading and typing. There are plenty of people out there who aren't particularly bright—people who experience some kind of injustice, or maybe just *perceive* it as an injustice, and suddenly decide to "take matters into their own hands." You can probably guess how that ends...

I’m going extreme here—I’m not blaming "games" entirely—but I am factoring them into how a personality is formed, alongside everything else sociology and psychology would look at.

Bottom line: games and video games aren't nearly as harmless as people usually think.

What makes these kinds of games non-serious is that you can always just walk away. No matter how realistic the simulation gets, you aren't stuck—you can bail whenever you've had enough.

Amanda Flores88 said:What makes these kinds of games non-serious is that you can always just walk away. No matter how realistic the simulation gets, you aren't stuck—you can bail whenever you've had enough.

It’s really not that simple. Just as a thought experiment—let's say we all ditch the digital world for five days, kill our phones, cut the Wi-Fi, and just go work outdoors or read some books.

We're talking about the same stuff here.

Giving up isn't just part of being human.

From a radical empiricist standpoint, whether the world actually exists or not is pretty much irrelevant. If it doesn't change how we experience things, the line between reality and a simulation is basically meaningless. Still—you have to wonder why we instinctively push back against that idea. When we’re dealing with inanimate objects, who cares if they're "real" or just digital constructs? But once you're facing a living thing, everything changes. You need to know if there's actual life in front of you or just a damn good imitation. And then there's the big one—the absolute dealbreaker—is that entity actually self-aware, or is it just running a script that makes it look that way? The world of gaming is really just a dress rehearsal for a future where we won't be able to tell the difference anymore.

lonegardener said:In that case, this forum is basically a virtual reality, and from what I can tell, you spend quite a few hours in it every single day... 😬

I suppose the "real world" isn't quite as perfect as you make it out to be, huh?

Besides, this meme seems pretty relevant:



🤣

So, you have the impression that I’m glued to this forum all day. To clarify, I am almost exclusively online between roughly 8:00 AM and 1:00 PM, which totals about five hours a day. Given there are 24 hours in a day and I sleep somewhere between four and six, that still leaves me with at least 13 hours dedicated entirely to the *real world*.

Furthermore, during those five hours when I am active here, I am almost always multitasking—cooking or tidying up, for instance. I might hop onto the forum while waiting for water to boil or for a steak to sear on one side... it isn't nearly enough time to engage in anything substantial, like sitting down with a book, but it is enough to draft a post. That is why my writing often feels a bit disjointed; I simply don't have the luxury of time to fully organize my thoughts.

Ultimately, I view this forum as a simple communication tool. It’s much like catching up with friends over coffee or having a quick phone call with family.

Sam Martinez9 said:So, you have the impression that I’m glued to this forum all day. To clarify, I am almost exclusively online between roughly 8:00 AM and 1:00 PM, which totals about five hours a day. Given there are 24 hours in a day and I sleep somewhere between four and six, that still leaves me with at least 13 hours dedicated entirely to the *real world*.

Furthermore, during those five hours when I am active here, I am almost always multitasking—cooking or tidying up, for instance. I might hop onto the forum while waiting for water to boil or for a steak to sear on one side... it isn't nearly enough time to engage in anything substantial, like sitting down with a book, but it is enough to draft a post. That is why my writing often feels a bit disjointed; I simply don't have the luxury of time to fully organize my thoughts.

Ultimately, I view this forum as a simple communication tool. It’s much like catching up with friends over coffee or having a quick phone call with family.

Man, my college mentor used to think reading books was kind of a joke, too. Whenever we told him we were reading up on a specific topic, he’d tell us to stop wasting our time with books and stick strictly to peer-reviewed journals. His logic was that by the time someone actually compiles and publishes a serious book on a subject, years have passed and half the info is already outdated because of new discoveries.

So, acting like books are "serious" while dismissing other ways of learning feels a bit elitist. Honestly, it might even be the wrong way to look at it.