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

First off, I’ve gotta give props to Return for calling them "video games" (hallelujah!) instead of those patronizing little "games" or whatever. We can get into the why behind that later.

Look, games aren't inherently bad. They build creativity, sharpen reflexes, and demand focus—basically, they're actually useful if you have some self-control. If you don't? Well, then they're just like any other addiction; they'll swallow you whole before you even know what hit you.

Honestly, I’m mostly just bummed that I don't have the time to play. It's not just about playing, either—I love watching how much skill goes into building these modern worlds. The storytelling, the engines, the soundtracks... I'm fascinated by all of it. Some titles (Far Cry, Elite) are just mind-blowing. My hands are itching to pick up a controller, seriously. I’m a huge fan of other franchises too, like Wolfenstein, Medal of Honor, and Need for Speed. There's so much stuff I'd love to download and dive into right now.

Quote:

Volver says: From this standpoint, focusing solely on how language mediates thought suggests a certain numbness in Western philosophy. It seems we’ve become blind to the specific constraints that this medium imposes on the flow of logic, leaving us ill-equipped to explore more engaging ways of conveying philosophical ideas. Once you acknowledge the inherent limits of using language to frame thought, 21st-century philosophers have a real opportunity. Through game design and immersive virtual environments, they can challenge the tired assumption that written discourse is the only arena where philosophy can exist. The notion that virtual worlds could serve as interactive arguments, academic outputs, or critical artifacts isn't some new fad; it's been grounded in theory for at least a decade. Since philosophizing through virtual spaces has already sparked new modes of inquiry, let's dive in: - what is the greatest potential in the alliance between video games and philosophy?

Homo ludens! 😁

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? 😉)

Oh, what an absolutely wonderful topic. 👍

From a purely technical standpoint, yes, games are played via some form of software. However, that is a rather oversimplified way to look at it. Some might even argue that a computer game falls under the category of digital art. Digital art relies on computer-based digital coding or the electronic storage and processing of information in various formats: text, numbers, images, sounds—all contained within binary code.

Of course, there is a dark side to video games, which could certainly be discussed at length, but there also seems to be something profoundly useful about them. There is a downside to internet forums, reading the news, or watching sports as well. Negatives exist everywhere.

It isn't a bad idea to contemplate this, provided we take it a step further:

1) Video games primarily function as an interactive medium.
2) Video games viewed as designed ethical systems.
3) Players as moral agents.
4) The ethics of video gaming.
5) The fundamental nature of video games (as well as the nature of playing video games).
6) Are video games art, and if they are, what specific genre of art are we discussing?

After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.

Steven Clark2 said:Homo ludens! 😁

Oh, what an absolutely wonderful topic. 👍

From a purely technical standpoint, yes, games are played via some form of software. However, that is a rather oversimplified way to look at it. Some might even argue that a computer game falls under the category of digital art. Digital art relies on computer-based digital coding or the electronic storage and processing of information in various formats: text, numbers, images, sounds—all contained within binary code.

Of course, there is a dark side to video games, which could certainly be discussed at length, but there also seems to be something profoundly useful about them. There is a downside to internet forums, reading the news, or watching sports as well. Negatives exist everywhere.

It isn't a bad idea to contemplate this, provided we take it a step further:

After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.
After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.
After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.
Talking about "pros and cons" is about as shallow as it gets. It isn't philosophy—any kid can list what's good and what's bad about something. That's just common sense, not deep thought.

Steven Clark2 said:Homo ludens! 😁

Oh, what an absolutely wonderful topic. 👍

From a purely technical standpoint, yes, games are played via some form of software. However, that is a rather oversimplified way to look at it. Some might even argue that a computer game falls under the category of digital art. Digital art relies on computer-based digital coding or the electronic storage and processing of information in various formats: text, numbers, images, sounds—all contained within binary code.

Of course, there is a dark side to video games, which could certainly be discussed at length, but there also seems to be something profoundly useful about them. There is a downside to internet forums, reading the news, or watching sports as well. Negatives exist everywhere.

It isn't a bad idea to contemplate this, provided we take it a step further:

After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.
After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.
After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.
While philosophy can certainly turn its attention toward computer games, the games themselves lack the capacity to engage in philosophy.

Computer games serve only as a tool, a means through which one might happen to learn a little something about philosophical concepts.

ruggedraven36 said:After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.

After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.
Talking about "pros and cons" is about as shallow as it gets. It isn't philosophy—any kid can list what's good and what's bad about something. That's just common sense, not deep thought.
Talking about "pros and cons" is about as shallow as it gets. It isn't philosophy—any kid can list what's good and what's bad about something. That's just common sense, not deep thought.
Furthermore, one of the primary philosophical inquiries within this "world" of gaming involves your inherent bias. You seem to reject computer games a priori, favoring what you deem "real" games for children instead. I find myself wondering: why shouldn't digital experiences be considered just as "real"?
Secondly, why should this focus be restricted solely to children?
And thirdly, at what age does play cease to be desirable?

ruggedraven36 said:After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.

After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.
Talking about "pros and cons" is about as shallow as it gets. It isn't philosophy—any kid can list what's good and what's bad about something. That's just common sense, not deep thought.
Talking about "pros and cons" is about as shallow as it gets. It isn't philosophy—any kid can list what's good and what's bad about something. That's just common sense, not deep thought.
Glad you skipped over that part.

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.

Amanda Flores88 said:Talking about "pros and cons" is about as shallow as it gets. It isn't philosophy—any kid can list what's good and what's bad about something. That's just common sense, not deep thought.

Glad you skipped over that part.
Honestly, one should just bypass you "old-timers" entirely when it comes to discussing gaming. 😒

It seems as though the sense of wonder associated with childhood died out in both of you a long time ago.

To begin with, what criteria are we even using to categorize games as either "normal" or "not normal"?

David Robinson26 said:Honestly, one should just bypass you "old-timers" entirely when it comes to discussing gaming. 😒

It seems as though the sense of wonder associated with childhood died out in both of you a long time ago.

To begin with, what criteria are we even using to categorize games as either "normal" or "not normal"?

Where did you even come from today? You're acting wild. 😁

First, my buddy here claims these games are especially bad (for kids), then he goes on to say that's somehow the least philosophical way to put it—whatever that means. 😁

Amanda Flores88 said:Where did you even come from today? You're acting wild. 😁

First, my buddy here claims these games are especially bad (for kids), then he goes on to say that's somehow the least philosophical way to put it—whatever that means. 😁

Everything carries some level of risk if you look closely enough, including medication—even when you follow the prescribed dosage to the letter. It is particularly dangerous when things like gaming or pharmaceutical drugs are misused or taken outside of their intended guidelines.

First, there is this immediate value judgment passed without any supporting argument, as if such a conclusion were somehow self-evident; and then, quite abruptly, comes the assertion that the matter doesn't even qualify as philosophy.
I find this approach to be a bit of an oversimplification, and I’m not just talking about video games. It seems like everything is being judged on a whim lately. For instance, Joe was recently under fire for his tastes, which I found quite interesting to observe. There simply aren't enough substantive arguments being presented here; instead, we see an overwhelming amount of reflexive likes and dislikes without any real depth behind them.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I am strictly a fan of video games; rather, I find myself drawn to almost any form of gaming. I will admit that my preferences fluctuate—some titles resonate more deeply than others—but the desire to play remains constant. When I approach a new experience, my methodology is quite deliberate: I first seek out what a game does exceptionally well before even considering its flaws. In my view, most critiques eventually boil down to the concept of "dosage." One should never overindulge; instead, one must discern the specific equilibrium that allows an individual game to shine. Ultimately, I don't believe there is such a thing as a fundamentally bad game. Rather, the deficiency usually lies with the players—those who either lack the maturity to appreciate a nuanced design or have simply outgrown the mechanics being presented to them.

The founder of Summerhill actually argued that
"all the evil in this world stems from the fact that we didn't play enough when we were children." 🙂

Childhood play is fundamental to psychophysical development. Playing outdoors and engaging in sports builds muscle, refines motor skills, and sharpens reflexes. Team sports, specifically, drive socialization—teaching us solidarity, how to cooperate toward a shared goal, and how to cultivate true sportsmanship, which helps us process defeat without feeling inadequate or worthless.
None of this carries weight if a person exists solely within their own head.
When someone lives entirely behind a screen, they are merely playing at being part of a community or interacting with nature. They are simulating real-world experiences they vaguely remember from a time when they still engaged with the world using their physical bodies—bodies that are now, quite steadily, fading away...

In short, video games are the perfect medium for the third age!
😬
We should probably pass laws to restrict them for children and the working population, while mandating them as essential equipment for nursing homes and households where people are over 50.

Sandra Murphy33 said:The founder of Summerhill actually argued that
"all the evil in this world stems from the fact that we didn't play enough when we were children." 🙂

Childhood play is fundamental to psychophysical development. Playing outdoors and engaging in sports builds muscle, refines motor skills, and sharpens reflexes. Team sports, specifically, drive socialization—teaching us solidarity, how to cooperate toward a shared goal, and how to cultivate true sportsmanship, which helps us process defeat without feeling inadequate or worthless.
None of this carries weight if a person exists solely within their own head.
When someone lives entirely behind a screen, they are merely playing at being part of a community or interacting with nature. They are simulating real-world experiences they vaguely remember from a time when they still engaged with the world using their physical bodies—bodies that are now, quite steadily, fading away...

In short, video games are the perfect medium for the third age!
😬
We should probably pass laws to restrict them for children and the working population, while mandating them as essential equipment for nursing homes and households where people are over 50.

👍

I find myself almost entirely in agreement with your sentiment.
My only reservation lies in the specific age groups mentioned; I believe one should never stop playing, regardless of age. Of course, it must be done with moderation—not all day long, and certainly not through activities that are inappropriate for one's stage of life.

David Robinson26 said:Everything carries some level of risk if you look closely enough, including medication—even when you follow the prescribed dosage to the letter. It is particularly dangerous when things like gaming or pharmaceutical drugs are misused or taken outside of their intended guidelines.

First, there is this immediate value judgment passed without any supporting argument, as if such a conclusion were somehow self-evident; and then, quite abruptly, comes the assertion that the matter doesn't even qualify as philosophy.
I find this approach to be a bit of an oversimplification, and I’m not just talking about video games. It seems like everything is being judged on a whim lately. For instance, Joe was recently under fire for his tastes, which I found quite interesting to observe. There simply aren't enough substantive arguments being presented here; instead, we see an overwhelming amount of reflexive likes and dislikes without any real depth behind them.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I am strictly a fan of video games; rather, I find myself drawn to almost any form of gaming. I will admit that my preferences fluctuate—some titles resonate more deeply than others—but the desire to play remains constant. When I approach a new experience, my methodology is quite deliberate: I first seek out what a game does exceptionally well before even considering its flaws. In my view, most critiques eventually boil down to the concept of "dosage." One should never overindulge; instead, one must discern the specific equilibrium that allows an individual game to shine. Ultimately, I don't believe there is such a thing as a fundamentally bad game. Rather, the deficiency usually lies with the players—those who either lack the maturity to appreciate a nuanced design or have simply outgrown the mechanics being presented to them.

Arguments are really nothing more than a highly articulated version of (dis)like; they are simply the rationalization of one's own taste.
Or, in the case of playing devil's advocate— it's just a game 😉for "the other side."

Sandra Murphy33 said:Arguments are really nothing more than a highly articulated version of (dis)like; they are simply the rationalization of one's own taste.
Or, in the case of playing devil's advocate— it's just a game 😉for "the other side."

Well, damn. You’ve really caught me off guard with that one. 😠

Sandra Murphy33 said:The founder of Summerhill actually argued that
"all the evil in this world stems from the fact that we didn't play enough when we were children." 🙂

Childhood play is fundamental to psychophysical development. Playing outdoors and engaging in sports builds muscle, refines motor skills, and sharpens reflexes. Team sports, specifically, drive socialization—teaching us solidarity, how to cooperate toward a shared goal, and how to cultivate true sportsmanship, which helps us process defeat without feeling inadequate or worthless.
None of this carries weight if a person exists solely within their own head.
When someone lives entirely behind a screen, they are merely playing at being part of a community or interacting with nature. They are simulating real-world experiences they vaguely remember from a time when they still engaged with the world using their physical bodies—bodies that are now, quite steadily, fading away...

In short, video games are the perfect medium for the third age!
😬
We should probably pass laws to restrict them for children and the working population, while mandating them as essential equipment for nursing homes and households where people are over 50.

I don't think the whole point of this discussion is "prescribing the appropriate dosage of computer games." That kind of talk is just for people who have nothing better to do with their time.

Steven Clark2 said:Homo ludens! 😁

Oh, what an absolutely wonderful topic. 👍

From a purely technical standpoint, yes, games are played via some form of software. However, that is a rather oversimplified way to look at it. Some might even argue that a computer game falls under the category of digital art. Digital art relies on computer-based digital coding or the electronic storage and processing of information in various formats: text, numbers, images, sounds—all contained within binary code.

Of course, there is a dark side to video games, which could certainly be discussed at length, but there also seems to be something profoundly useful about them. There is a downside to internet forums, reading the news, or watching sports as well. Negatives exist everywhere.

It isn't a bad idea to contemplate this, provided we take it a step further:

After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.
After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.
After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.

That’s a solid list. 👍

If you really wanted to stir the pot, you should probably throw in something that actually sparks a debate—something that hits on those recurring themes from your list. Honestly, the most common thing we see popping up lately is stuff that Wand1 usually brings to the table, though he hasn't been around much to write much of anything recently. You know, that whole...Quote : game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interaction among rational decision-makers. It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science."

Think of it this way: game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interaction among rational decision-makers. It’s one of those foundational concepts that ripples through everything; it has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science.

Game theory has basically become the go-to framework for analyzing how systems evolve and eventually reach a resolution, specifically when you're dealing with what people call "rational decision-makers." Of course, that phrase is a bit of a loaded term—especially when you try to link it back to the whole debate over free will, which is something I’ve spent plenty of time rambling about in my previous posts. But if you look closely, you can pretty much shoehorn any kind of interaction between living beings into this model; you could even argue that the entire process of evolution itself follows these patterns.

Game theory predates computational games by a long shot. The core concepts have been floating around forever because, frankly, strategic games themselves aren't some modern invention. But let’s be real: once computers entered the picture, they gave this entire field a massive tailwind that changed everything. I’ve mentioned this before, but I really don't see the point in people trying to draw such a hard line between "computational" and "non-computational" games. It feels pretty arbitrary to me. Honestly, trying to separate them like that is about as logical as trying to claim that using a calculator is a completely different species of math than doing long division on a piece of paper. They're part of the same continuum.

Just a timely meme for you guys. 🙂


Look, you can't just brush off the sheer weight of what we're talking about here. Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interaction among rational decision-makers, and if you think that’s just some abstract academic fluff, you’re missing the forest for the trees. This isn't some niche hobby; it has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Just look at the track record—it’s picked up multiple Nobel Prizes and an endless string of other major awards spanning everything from evolutionary biology to high-level economics. When you have that kind of recognition across such wildly different disciplines, it’s a massive signal that there is actual, tangible value baked into the core of it. It’s not just math for math's sake; it's a fundamental way of understanding how the world actually functions.

It’s actually been proven that certain video games can serve as a solid workout for your brain, potentially increasing gray matter density in specific regions. We're talking about something that could act as a legitimate preventative measure against dementia. So, when people joke about seniors getting hooked on gaming, it might actually be more than just a punchline; it could be a genuine health strategy.

It’s funny how life works, isn't it? My old man can barely wrap his head around even the simplest video games, yet on the flip side, he’s (and honestly, I get it) absolutely terrified of dementia creeping in. It's such a strange contradiction to watch.

I guess I’m just sitting here staring at this puzzle, wondering if I’ve finally lost my marbles or if there’s actually some profound meaning behind how much time I spend trying to fit these tiny cardboard pieces together. It feels like one of those endless existential loops where you think you've found the perfect match, only to realize you've been looking at it upside down the whole time—kind of like how we struggle to grasp the true essence of Being in our daily lives. Honestly, it’s probably just me being overly dramatic, but there’s something strangely humbling about being completely defeated by a picture of a landscape. steelridge58 says:
I basically grew up inside computer games. Honestly, I don’t really bother with TV and I’m not much of a music person either; instead, I just spend most of my time immersed in virtual worlds, so I am genuinely curious to hear what everyone here thinks about this whole topic.

Here’s a quick little post I put together from a different thread, just for those of you who aren't really into video games:
I honestly can’t help but feel a little overwhelmed by how much weight we put on these heavy philosophical ideas, because sometimes I think we get so caught up in the deep existential dread that we forget how much our everyday surroundings actually shape who we are. It’s funny, really—I was walking through the local shopping mall the other day, just minding my own business, when I started thinking about Heidegger's whole concept of Being and how easily we just drift through life without ever truly being "present" in our own skin. It’s easy to get lost in the noise of everything around us, isn't it? I mean, I know I certainly do, and I often find myself overthinking things until I'm just spinning my wheels, which is probably why I tend to ramble like this, but there's something so profoundly human about that struggle to just *exist* without feeling like you're performing for some invisible audience. I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe we shouldn't take ourselves quite so seriously all the time, even when we're grappling with the big questions.

I still have that one post stuck in my head, and I’m really hoping we can actually dive into some of those questions you brought up right here in this thread.

Technology just keeps pushing the envelope, doesn't it? Now we’re seeing gaming migrate entirely into true virtual reality through these specialized headsets, which brings up this fascinatingly deep philosophical concept known as "presence." It’s essentially that specific threshold where a player becomes so completely submerged in an artificial environment that they start losing the ability to distinguish it from the actual world around them.

I’m guessing—or maybe it just strikes me that way—that this whole philosophical concept regarding (virtual) presence, this idea of "being there," really mirrors Heidegger's notion of presence as a kind of fundamental dwelling or being-in-the-world.
It’s that strange, beautiful paradox of truly experiencing life—that deep sense of immersion where you're fully present in the moment, yet somehow simultaneously stepping outside of yourself through what we call ex-sistence, all while finding your footing in relation to everyone else around you.
I’ve been thinking about how presence acts as this constant variable—something that stays ever-present yet remains entirely subject to how we choose to interpret our own ex-sistence.
Just being here.
Existing in this virtual world.

When you start talking about levels of immersion—kind of like how we describe being "submerged" in a book through those deep intertextual connections, or how video games use all these interactive tricks to pull you into a virtual world—it makes me wonder if we could apply that same logic to analytical distance. I mean, can we actually talk about varying degrees of analytical distance between a player and the game itself, and if so, just how much of that distance is always hanging around there, even when we feel totally lost in the experience?

I was just reading something online that really stuck with me, mostly because of how deeply it ties back into certain philosophical theories, and I honestly think it’s pretty fascinating that if you look at it from a technical standpoint, every single virtual world essentially acts as a silent materialization of what we’d call an idealistic perspective—or even a more radical version of idealism, for that matter.
I’ve been spending way too much time lately spiraling down the rabbit hole of subjective idealism, and honestly, it’s a bit exhausting how much it makes me question everything I think I see right in front of me. There’s this overwhelming, almost dizzying feeling that comes with the idea that reality doesn't actually exist as some solid, independent thing out there, but is instead just a collection of perceptions living entirely inside our own minds. It’s a heavy concept to carry around when you're just trying to go about your day, because if everything—the coffee in my hand, the streetlights in Chicago, even the people passing by—is just a projection of my own consciousness, then the very idea of an objective world starts to feel like a beautiful, fragile illusion. I find myself wondering if we ever truly touch anything at all, or if we're all just trapped in these solitary bubbles of perception, forever reaching for a reality that might not even be there once we stop looking..

Amanda Flores88 said: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.

Look, if philosophy is just a love for wisdom or truth, then it's definitely not something reserved only for career academics—and words aren't its only outlet, either.
Some people struggle to put their thoughts into words, but that doesn't mean they aren't thinking. And those who actually have something to say? They'll find a way to say it, in all sorts of different ways.

Games—including video games—are a great way to communicate and learn, mostly because they're just plain fun.

Yeah, exactly. We’re talking about entirely different ways to mediate thought and reasoning, specifically looking at how we might leverage virtual worlds alongside traditional text within a philosophical framework—basically, finding a way to fuse deep philosophical discourse with this kind of immersive, philosophical play happening right inside a digital environment.

Sandra Murphy33 said:Our inner world (the only truly real one...) is increasingly being sought out and discovered within the so-called virtual realm, while appearing less and less in the so-called real, external, material, physical world, which increasingly resembles nothing more than a massive, glittering shopping mall.

and then we can go back to lamenting the topic @Volver opened, inspired by one of my posts regarding self-annihilation (a topic some young guys dismissed as quasi-philosophy and told me to be ashamed of). Only now, we aren't just talking about philosophical self-annihilation, but a much broader human self-annihilation. Because if a person fails to wake up from this virtual reality and quietly vanishes, they are gone—they have annihilated themselves. And since technology is a human invention from start to finish, we could just as easily say that humanity has annihilated itself through its own creation.

A person annihilates themselves when they realize they have miscalculated and abused their own free will. Under such circumstances, self-annihilation—particularly from the perspective of the soul or eternity—becomes the only valid and moral choice.
By soul, I am referring to that part of a human being that transcends the self, that seeks eternity, or in psychological terms, seeks stability—as the only legitimate framework for exercising one's freedom.
The freer a person becomes, the greater their need for space, or rather, for the widest possible frameworks they can imagine (so that "the sky is the limit" 😉).

if philosophy claims to have something to say about labor, the worker, exploitation, capitalism, or socialism, how could it not have something to say about the human being, always respecting their ontological dignity (yet another philosophical concept I used in a previous post that some people failed to grasp)?

Ontological dignity—would that simply mean dignity in and of itself?
It is deeply woven into everything you just listed. In fact, it is precisely out of that dignity that a person engages with "labor, the worker, exploitation, and so on."

A person annihilates themselves when they realize they have miscalculated and abused their own free will. Under such circumstances, self-annihilation—particularly from the perspective of the soul or eternity—becomes the only valid and moral choice.
By soul, I am referring to that part of a human being that transcends the self, that seeks eternity, or in psychological terms, seeks stability—as the only legitimate framework for exercising one's freedom.
The freer a person becomes, the greater their need for space, or rather, for the widest possible frameworks they can imagine (so that "the sky is the limit" 😉).

if philosophy claims to have something to say about labor, the worker, exploitation, capitalism, or socialism, how could it not have something to say about the human being, always respecting their ontological dignity (yet another philosophical concept I used in a previous post that some people failed to grasp)?

Ontological dignity—would that simply mean dignity in and of itself?
It is deeply woven into everything you just listed. In fact, it is precisely out of that dignity that a person engages with "labor, the worker, exploitation, and so on."
A person annihilates themselves when they realize they have miscalculated and abused their own free will. Under such circumstances, self-annihilation—particularly from the perspective of the soul or eternity—becomes the only valid and moral choice.
By soul, I am referring to that part of a human being that transcends the self, that seeks eternity, or in psychological terms, seeks stability—as the only legitimate framework for exercising one's freedom.
The freer a person becomes, the greater their need for space, or rather, for the widest possible frameworks they can imagine (so that "the sky is the limit" 😉).

if philosophy claims to have something to say about labor, the worker, exploitation, capitalism, or socialism, how could it not have something to say about the human being, always respecting their ontological dignity (yet another philosophical concept I used in a previous post that some people failed to grasp)?

Ontological dignity—would that simply mean dignity in and of itself?
It is deeply woven into everything you just listed. In fact, it is precisely out of that dignity that a person engages with "labor, the worker, exploitation, and so on."
I’d love to build on that by tossing out a few questions that feel pretty open-ended to me, and they actually touch on some studies I happened to come across while digging into this topic.

Are our physical and virtual identities actually separate entities, or are they just different ways of expressing what we call Being?
Is humanity’s future inevitably going to be forced into a binary choice between fiction and reality?
Could highly advanced virtual reality technology actually serve as an answer to the crisis of humanism? (The philosopher S. Gualeni, whom I mentioned earlier, argues that we should view virtual worlds as a context where a new kind of humanism has already begun to emerge).
Which identity is the "real" one—the physical one, rooted in our bodies, our reason, our tangible existence, and our constant process of "becoming," or the one built on virtuality, fictionalization, simulation, and a sort of quiet 😉 "unbecoming"?
And what exactly is it that makes an identity "real"—that thing we so often put in quotation marks when we talk about a "true" identity
—is it its materiality and tangibility, or is it that internal web of feelings, experiences, and thoughts?

Personally, I don't think we should be looking at this as an either-or situation.
I think it's more of a unified thing, or
well, whatever you want to call it.
🙂

Eric Newman75 said:First off, I’ve gotta give props to Return for calling them "video games" (hallelujah!) instead of those patronizing little "games" or whatever. We can get into the why behind that later.

Look, games aren't inherently bad. They build creativity, sharpen reflexes, and demand focus—basically, they're actually useful if you have some self-control. If you don't? Well, then they're just like any other addiction; they'll swallow you whole before you even know what hit you.

Honestly, I’m mostly just bummed that I don't have the time to play. It's not just about playing, either—I love watching how much skill goes into building these modern worlds. The storytelling, the engines, the soundtracks... I'm fascinated by all of it. Some titles (Far Cry, Elite) are just mind-blowing. My hands are itching to pick up a controller, seriously. I’m a huge fan of other franchises too, like Wolfenstein, Medal of Honor, and Need for Speed. There's so much stuff I'd love to download and dive into right now.

Thanks.
🙂)
I’d honestly love to hear your take on the reasons behind all this, if you wouldn't mind walking me through your reasoning.

I honestly can't even begin to describe how much I needed this little getaway, though I suppose I should have planned it better from the start because my attempt at being organized was, well, predictably disastrous. There’s just something about finally getting away from the grind and breathing some fresh air that makes you realize how much you've been running on fumes, even if I did spend half my time wandering around aimlessly like a lost tourist. It's been one of those trips where everything feels slightly chaotic but in a way that actually makes me feel alive again, which is a weirdly comforting thought when you're sitting there wondering why you forgot to pack your favorite pair of shoes. As specified by steelridge58:
The fundamental flaw in philosophy—the one that Wittgenstein really hit the nail on the head with—is this idea that we can take concepts, words, and abstract notions as if they were the primary, solid building blocks used to construct something precise. We treat them like mathematical constants, but in reality, they’re just secondary phenomena; they aren't even perfectly exact themselves, so if you try to build a rigorous system by taking them literally, you aren't going to end up with anything truly exact. All you're really getting are approximations. Back in Wittgenstein's day, I suppose that distinction wasn't quite as glaringly obvious to everyone, but honestly, in our modern era of video games and digital simulations, the gap between those fuzzy concepts and actual precision is impossible to ignore.

I think you’re actually going to find this pretty interesting.

You don't just stumble upon a piece of history like this by accident; you find it because you’re actually looking for something more meaningful than the digital noise we deal with every single day. I was reading this piece about how we often treat our past—and even our present cultural milestones—as if they're just static objects sitting behind glass in a museum, rather than living, breathing parts of who we are. It’s easy to get caught up in the idea that an artifact is just a "thing," a relic of some bygone era that has nothing to do with us, but that's a pretty shallow way to view the world, isn't it? When we look at these historical markers, we aren't just staring at old stone or dusty paper; we're looking at the fingerprints of people who felt the same fears, joys, and ambitions that we do right now in the States. There's this tendency in our modern culture to prioritize the "new" and the "fast," treating everything else as obsolete junk, but there's a profound weight to things that have actually endured. If we strip away the context and just see an object as a curiosity, we lose the thread that connects us to the human experience. I guess what I'm trying to say is that understanding where we came from isn't just some academic exercise for historians in D.C.; it's about recognizing that we are part of a much longer, much deeper story than the one we tell ourselves on social media. We need to stop treating our heritage like a collection of dead things and start seeing them as mirrors.

Steven Clark2 said:Homo ludens! 😁

Oh, what an absolutely wonderful topic. 👍

From a purely technical standpoint, yes, games are played via some form of software. However, that is a rather oversimplified way to look at it. Some might even argue that a computer game falls under the category of digital art. Digital art relies on computer-based digital coding or the electronic storage and processing of information in various formats: text, numbers, images, sounds—all contained within binary code.

Of course, there is a dark side to video games, which could certainly be discussed at length, but there also seems to be something profoundly useful about them. There is a downside to internet forums, reading the news, or watching sports as well. Negatives exist everywhere.

It isn't a bad idea to contemplate this, provided we take it a step further:

After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.
After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.
After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.
I’m thinking we should start a group reading session together.
I’m thinking we should throw in some actual gameplay, maybe some specific scenarios or even just random associations and examples—basically anything we can mash together to see what sticks.
I’ve been sitting here thinking about this lately, and honestly, I feel like I might be overcomplicating things, but there is just something so deeply unsettling about how we approach these heavy philosophical questions without any real sense of direction. It feels like we're all just wandering through this massive, intellectual fog, trying to make sense of existence while tripping over our own feet, and I can't help but wonder if we're even asking the right questions to begin with. You know that feeling when you're staring at a problem that seems simple on the surface, but the more you dig, the more you realize the entire foundation is built on sand? That's exactly where I find myself right now. I keep going back to these core ideas, trying to find some sort of anchor, but everything feels so fleeting and subjective, which is frankly a little exhausting if I'm being completely honest with myself. I suppose I'm just looking for some kind of clarity in the chaos, even if I end up just circling the same old doubts. 🙂

Man, what an absolutely fantastic topic we've got on the table here. 👍

Technically speaking, sure, video games are run through some kind of software, but honestly, that’s such a massive oversimplification if you really stop to think about it. If you ask certain people, they’d probably argue that a computer game actually falls under the category of... I’ve been spending way too much time lately thinking about digital art and where the hell we actually stand with it all. It feels like every single day there's some massive shift happening, whether it's a new tool hitting the market or a heated debate about what even counts as "real" creativity in an age where you can just prompt an image into existence. I honestly find myself oscillating between being completely mesmerized by the sheer technical possibility of it—like, how incredible is it that someone sitting in a studio in Seattle can manipulate light and texture with such precision—and feeling this deep, slightly embarrassing sense of dread that maybe we're losing that raw, tactile connection to the craft. It’s a weird, messy intersection of high-tech innovation and old-school soul, and I guess I'm just trying to figure out if we're witnessing the evolution of expression or just the beginning of a very shiny, very hollow era.Digital art really just boils down to whatever we can squeeze out of computer-based coding or that constant cycle of electronic storage and information processing—we’re talking about everything from raw text and numbers to images and sounds, all distilled down into binary code.

Sure, there’s definitely a dark side to video games—and honestly, we could go on about that for ages—but it feels like there's some genuine value tucked away in them too. It’s the same story with anything else, really; online forums can be toxic, scrolling through the news can mess with your head, and even following sports has its downsides. There are pitfalls everywhere if you look for them.

It’s actually pretty interesting to chew on these ideas before we dive even deeper into the weeds:

1) At their core, video games function primarily as an interactive medium.
2) Viewing video games as intentionally designed ethical frameworks.
3) Examining players as moral agents.
4) The ethics inherent within gaming.
5) Questioning the fundamental nature of video games (and indeed, the nature of playing them).
6) Whether video games qualify as art, and if they do, what specific category of art are we talking about?

I mean, at the end of the day, video games are just part of electronic media, which is a field that philosophy spends a massive amount of time dissecting.

That’s a fantastic contribution, and you've raised some great questions. 👍

Beyond just covering those specific topics, I think the real challenge—and also the most exciting part—of media philosophy is how it differs from older philosophical traditions; it offers these incredible opportunities to mediate philosophical thought, especially since its scope reaches far beyond just the realm of linguistics.

Anyway, I'll catch you on the next one.
🙂