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

steelridge58 said: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.

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:

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.
🙂
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:

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.
🙂
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.
🙂
First off, using a diminutive doesn't define what something is. Johan Huizinga dedicated an entire book to play as a cultural phenomenon—he analyzed and explained it extensively—and that absolutely includes video games. Look at our everyday language: we talk about children's play, social play, fair play, games of chance, wordplay, games of luck, dirty games... none of those use diminutives. Calling them "video games" is just the logical linguistic evolution of that sequence.

Second, gaming is serious business. And I'm not just talking about the grueling work put in by programmers, designers, writers, and musicians... We're talking about an industry moving hundreds of millions of dollars, where massive tournaments are held all over the world where top-tier players can walk away with huge payouts.

Third, games are akin to film; they're arguably the eighth art. Using a patronizing little term like "little games" doesn't capture that essence at all.

And fourth, they represent a subculture—a way of life that runs parallel to mainstream cultural and social life. Honestly, despite the existence of officially recognized, tradition-steeped culture, this subculture has managed to survive and thrive, even when it's been at odds with the establishment. For the longest time, gamers were misunderstood "fanatics" or "addicts" supposedly running away from their responsibilities. They were constantly labeled, and people were even suggesting they needed medical intervention. This community doesn't deserve to be treated like children, nor should the things they are passionate about be belittled with diminutive labels.

Eric Newman75 said: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:

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.
🙂
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.
🙂
First off, using a diminutive doesn't define what something is. Johan Huizinga dedicated an entire book to play as a cultural phenomenon—he analyzed and explained it extensively—and that absolutely includes video games. Look at our everyday language: we talk about children's play, social play, fair play, games of chance, wordplay, games of luck, dirty games... none of those use diminutives. Calling them "video games" is just the logical linguistic evolution of that sequence.

Second, gaming is serious business. And I'm not just talking about the grueling work put in by programmers, designers, writers, and musicians... We're talking about an industry moving hundreds of millions of dollars, where massive tournaments are held all over the world where top-tier players can walk away with huge payouts.

Third, games are akin to film; they're arguably the eighth art. Using a patronizing little term like "little games" doesn't capture that essence at all.

And fourth, they represent a subculture—a way of life that runs parallel to mainstream cultural and social life. Honestly, despite the existence of officially recognized, tradition-steeped culture, this subculture has managed to survive and thrive, even when it's been at odds with the establishment. For the longest time, gamers were misunderstood "fanatics" or "addicts" supposedly running away from their responsibilities. They were constantly labeled, and people were even suggesting they needed medical intervention. This community doesn't deserve to be treated like children, nor should the things they are passionate about be belittled with diminutive labels.
First off, using a diminutive doesn't define what something is. Johan Huizinga dedicated an entire book to play as a cultural phenomenon—he analyzed and explained it extensively—and that absolutely includes video games. Look at our everyday language: we talk about children's play, social play, fair play, games of chance, wordplay, games of luck, dirty games... none of those use diminutives. Calling them "video games" is just the logical linguistic evolution of that sequence.

Second, gaming is serious business. And I'm not just talking about the grueling work put in by programmers, designers, writers, and musicians... We're talking about an industry moving hundreds of millions of dollars, where massive tournaments are held all over the world where top-tier players can walk away with huge payouts.

Third, games are akin to film; they're arguably the eighth art. Using a patronizing little term like "little games" doesn't capture that essence at all.

And fourth, they represent a subculture—a way of life that runs parallel to mainstream cultural and social life. Honestly, despite the existence of officially recognized, tradition-steeped culture, this subculture has managed to survive and thrive, even when it's been at odds with the establishment. For the longest time, gamers were misunderstood "fanatics" or "addicts" supposedly running away from their responsibilities. They were constantly labeled, and people were even suggesting they needed medical intervention. This community doesn't deserve to be treated like children, nor should the things they are passionate about be belittled with diminutive labels.
If you were to weigh food production and manufacturing against sports like football, movies, or video games... honestly, who knows which side actually pulls in more capital?

Sam Martinez9 said:First off, using a diminutive doesn't define what something is. Johan Huizinga dedicated an entire book to play as a cultural phenomenon—he analyzed and explained it extensively—and that absolutely includes video games. Look at our everyday language: we talk about children's play, social play, fair play, games of chance, wordplay, games of luck, dirty games... none of those use diminutives. Calling them "video games" is just the logical linguistic evolution of that sequence.

Second, gaming is serious business. And I'm not just talking about the grueling work put in by programmers, designers, writers, and musicians... We're talking about an industry moving hundreds of millions of dollars, where massive tournaments are held all over the world where top-tier players can walk away with huge payouts.

Third, games are akin to film; they're arguably the eighth art. Using a patronizing little term like "little games" doesn't capture that essence at all.

And fourth, they represent a subculture—a way of life that runs parallel to mainstream cultural and social life. Honestly, despite the existence of officially recognized, tradition-steeped culture, this subculture has managed to survive and thrive, even when it's been at odds with the establishment. For the longest time, gamers were misunderstood "fanatics" or "addicts" supposedly running away from their responsibilities. They were constantly labeled, and people were even suggesting they needed medical intervention. This community doesn't deserve to be treated like children, nor should the things they are passionate about be belittled with diminutive labels.

If you were to weigh food production and manufacturing against sports like football, movies, or video games... honestly, who knows which side actually pulls in more capital?
That’s really beside the point.

I mean, what do you even mean by "games"? It’s not all one thing. For instance, I personally can't stand most mainstream titles—either they're way too easy and I lose interest immediately, or they're so heavily driven by narrative that it feels less like playing and more like sitting through a movie. But then, I have a real soft spot for roguelikes. You know, those games where you only get one shot at it? If you screw up, you're back at square one, even if you've already sunk three full days into a single run.
I look at them as a sort of mental workout. The whole core loop is built around avoiding stupid mistakes, and since no plan ever survives contact with reality, you're forced to learn how to actually adapt using whatever scraps or tools you happen to pick up along the way.

Beyond roguelikes, I also find myself gravitating toward card games and chess.

So, really, you can't just lump all video games into one big bucket. The genres can be worlds apart from each other.

steelridge58 As I’ve observed before, the reality of the situation is far more complex than most people care to admit. It isn't just about surface-level observations; it's about understanding the underlying mechanics at play here. When you look closely at how these systems actually function, the cracks start to show. Most people prefer the comfort of a simple narrative, but if you want to get anywhere meaningful, you have to deal with the messy, unvarnished truth. It’s a wearying process, certainly, but ignoring the structural flaws won't make them disappear.
I stumbled upon an interesting point while reading recently, specifically regarding how certain digital environments align with philosophical theory. Technically speaking, every virtual world serves as a silent materialization of what we would recognize as an idealistic perspective—or, if you want to get extreme, a radical version of idealism itself.
Subjective idealism is a concept that often gets tossed around in academic circles, usually accompanied by a sense of intellectual pretension. At its core, the argument is straightforward, if somewhat unsettling: the idea that reality, as we know it, is fundamentally dependent on the mind. In this view, there is no "objective" world existing independently of perception. Objects don't just sit there in space waiting to be noticed; they exist only insofar as they are being perceived. It’s a perspective that strips away the comfort of a solid, external universe. If you follow this logic to its conclusion, the physical world becomes little more than a collection of mental impressions. It suggests that what we call "matter" is actually just a byproduct of sensory experience. While it sounds like something pulled straight from a fever dream, it presents a rigorous challenge to how we define existence itself. Of course, most people find this impossible to swallow. We have an innate intuition that the chair beneath us or the skyscraper in downtown Chicago remains exactly where it is, whether we are looking at it or not. To deny that objective stability feels like walking on thin air. Yet, when you dig into the mechanics of perception, the distinction between the thing itself and our internal representation of that thing starts to blur. It forces you to confront the possibility that our entire grasp of reality is nothing more than a highly organized hallucination..

Subjective idealism is essentially just one specific branch of idealism—though "immaterialism" might actually be a more accurate way to describe it. It’s the school of thought most famously associated with George Berkeley. The core argument here is that material objects don't truly exist in any physical sense; instead, there is only the mind and its various mental contents.

Well, I feel compelled to weigh in here, though I’ll be approaching this from a non-dualistic perspective. 🙂
According to this doctrine, both the body—as physical matter—and the mind are created entities. In this view, the mind itself possesses a sort of "material" quality; it isn't the final, ultimate reality. That distinction belongs solely to consciousness.
The mind would essentially be identical to the body—or rather, the body and matter itself would simply be the mind as perceived by someone else.
Furthermore, one has to consider whether our mental content is largely just a reflection of the external material world—specifically when dealing with what is often termed the "lower mind," or that purely instrumental level of reason.

I’d like to build on this by posing a series of questions that remain largely unanswered—issues that I’ve encountered while digging through several academic papers and studies relevant to this discussion.

Are our physical and virtual identities truly distinct entities, or are they merely different manifestations of what we define as being?
Is humanity’s future inherently destined to be a binary struggle between fiction and reality? It’s a question that feels increasingly heavy as we drift further from a shared sense of truth. We seem to be approaching a crossroads where we are forced to choose between a tangible, perhaps unpalatable, reality and a curated, manufactured fiction that offers more comfort but less substance. If we look at the trajectory of modern discourse, the line isn't just blurring; it's being intentionally dismantled. We live in an era where digital constructs—simulated experiences, algorithmic echo chambers, and hyper-real personas—often carry more weight than the physical world they inhabit. This creates a predictable tension. On one side, you have the raw, often chaotic facts of existence. On the other, you have the polished, digestible narratives designed to satisfy our psychological cravings for order and validation. The dilemma is whether we can actually sustain a society if we lose the ability to distinguish between the two. A civilization built on fiction is a house of cards; it looks impressive until the wind shifts. However, a life lived purely within the constraints of cold, hard reality can feel hollow without the capacity for imagination and myth-making. The real danger isn't necessarily the presence of fiction, but the total surrender to it. Once we decide that a convenient lie is more useful than a difficult truth, the concept of "reality" becomes obsolete. At that point, we aren't choosing between two paths anymore; we are simply choosing which illusion we want to inhabit while the actual foundation of our world erodes beneath us. Whether this dichotomy is an unavoidable evolution of the human condition or a trap we are actively building for ourselves remains to be seen.
Can high-level virtual reality technology serve as the definitive answer to the crisis of humanism? As S. Gualeni argues, we shouldn't just view virtual worlds as mere escapism; rather, they need to be understood, studied, and utilized as the very framework within which a new kind of humanism has already begun to take shape.
Which identity carries any actual weight? Is it the one rooted in physicality—grounded in our biology, our reason, and the tangible reality of "becoming"? Or is it the one built on virtuality, the endless cycle of fictionalization, and the quiet drift into pure simulation? 😉 Is there some kind of shortage?
What exactly constitutes what makes someone "real"—and why we so frequently wrap that word, "real," in quotation marks? I’m talking about the concept of a true identity.
Is it his physical presence—that tangible, heavy sense of reality—or is it rather that intricate, internal web of sensations, perceptions, and fleeting thoughts?

Well, that's certainly one way to start a conversation. Not much to go on there, is there? If you're looking for a deep dive or a reasoned debate, you might want to provide a bit more substance first. I'll be here when you've actually got something worth discussing. 😁
Only one word comes to mind when I think about this "new humanism."
The pacification of instinct. ....
To be clear, I’m not just talking about gaming here; I’m referring to any kind of digital interaction, period.
Is pacification inherently synonymous with "numbing," or is it strictly a positive process? I find myself wondering if this phenomenon carries an unavoidable negative undertone.
It all hinges on how much the external material world undergoes this same "pacification" alongside us. The real question is whether this process is sweeping through the entirety of the living natural world at once.

Let’s run a thought experiment: what happens to the physical world if we all just retreat further into our screens, essentially becoming prisoners within our own four walls? We saw those clips during the initial lockdowns—wildlife wandering freely through empty streets and crossing highways without a care in the world. But you have to wonder how much of that was just a curated simulation. Most people lack basic digital literacy, and since programmers often carry their own ideological biases or agendas, they can easily feed us any distorted version of reality on a screen.

Forgive me if I’m overanalyzing this, but if the entire "normal" world shifts into a virtual one—if we just bury ourselves behind monitors and never look up—will access to the physical world be reserved solely for the military and the police? 🙄
The military and law enforcement were originally established to protect the citizenry; that hasn't been their function for a very long time.
The media was also meant to keep the public informed; instead, they spend more time spreading disinformation than actually providing facts.
So, we have three core pillars of the System that were theoretically designed to serve the people, yet they have all pivoted to serve the elites. We are essentially feeding the very mechanisms used against us. Where exactly does that trajectory end?
(Side note: I’ve started watching The Handmaid's Tale .... 😢 )

Sandra Murphy33, you nailed this analysis.

Thanks for such a detailed breakdown, and I promise I’ll jump back in with a proper response once I can actually carve out a little more time to think. Regarding that first point you were addressing, I have to say, at first glance, I'm right there with you.

As for everything else, even if I were just skimming through it, I wouldn't feel right giving an answer without really digging in, so I think I'll just
hold off for now. 🙂

ruggedraven36 said:Sandra Murphy33, you nailed this analysis.

It’s a bit grim, honestly, but I appreciate the insight 🙂

Sandra Murphy33 said:It’s a bit grim, honestly, but I appreciate the insight 🙂

It’s depressing for me too—but if we just close our eyes to it, we’re really just digging our own graves.

I just wanted to jump in and add that when we're diving into this specific topic and all its complexities, we aren't really talking about people just staring at computer screens and worrying about what's going to happen to the world, because if that were the case, we'd be lost.
You honestly need to do a bit more reading on this if you want to get the full picture; here’s a link that might help
https://link.springer.com/article/10...347-013-0123-x
It gives you a decent, high-level overview so you can actually wrap your head around what "new humanism" implies
within the context of what we're discussing here.

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? 😉)

Honestly, I'd say it's pretty slim. If you look at most game developers, there's almost zero connection to Philosophy. In fact, if there's any underlying "philosophy" driving the industry, it's usually just "make a fortune and chase the fame."

I must admit, I often find myself struggling to articulate my thoughts clearly, but I feel compelled to weigh in on this. There is something deeply profound about the way we interact with digital spaces, much like how one might approach a complex philosophical problem. It isn't just about the technology itself, but the underlying structure of our engagement with it. I sometimes worry that I am overthinking these matters, yet I cannot shake the feeling that there is a significant layer of meaning beneath the surface of our virtual interactions. ruggedraven36 says:
What exactly is...🙂 It seems I have failed to uncover any mention of computer games within the 18th or 19th-century papyri and parchments, nor did I find anything regarding them in Hegel's Gospel volumes. Given my lack of success, I suppose reductionism is quite acceptable now.

The Gospel according to Hegel? I was under the impression we were discussing apocryphal texts, but frankly, it makes little difference to me. 😁

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.
I suspect you might have tripped up somewhere back in the 18th or perhaps even the 19th century. Anyone who actually plays video games will understand exactly what I mean.

I find myself returning to this particular subject quite often, though I admit my attempts to articulate it clearly are frequently met with a certain degree of clumsy inadequacy on my part. It is a topic that demands a level of rigor I sometimes struggle to maintain, yet the importance of the inquiry remains undeniable. ruggedraven36 says:
That is a solid list. 👍

I feel I should perhaps add a point of discussion that frequently surfaces—one that touches upon several items on your list. It is a topic often brought up by Wand1, though he doesn't contribute to these threads quite as often as I would like. I am referring to the so-called...I find myself returning, quite frequently, to the complexities of gamma theory. It is a subject that demands a certain level of intellectual rigor, one that I often feel I struggle to meet, yet I cannot seem to pull myself away from its intricacies. There is something profoundly captivating about how strategic interaction shapes our reality."

I honestly have to wonder how you managed to stumble upon that. Just how much experience do you actually have in this field? To my mind, gamma theory is such an incredibly complex subject that it probably deserves its own dedicated thread entirely. Looking at the article you cited, I found it quite interesting that they even included a specific subheading for it. Philosophy...which was, quite frankly, what piqued my interest most of all.

steelridge58 said: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.

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:

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.
🙂
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:

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.
🙂
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.
🙂
I am always in favor of receiving thoughtful and practical suggestions, though I must admit I am somewhat hesitant to simply pick up a book and start reading without further hesitation. 😁

steelridge58 said: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.

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:

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.
🙂
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:

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.
🙂
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.
🙂
Are you suggesting we are talking about Media Philosophy? 😁 From the Preface of the Book Virtual Worlds as Philosophical Tools: How to Philosophize with a Digital Hammer (2015):

Over the past twenty years, a fresh discipline known as Media Philosophy has begun making waves within the academic world. According to Reinhard Margreiter, one of the field's leading voices, this term doesn't just describe the study of a new ontological territory. Instead, he suggests that Media Philosophy signifies a profound shift in the very nature of Philosophy itself. This transformation involves turning our attention toward—and tracing the historical descent of—the mediatic foundations upon which all thought is built. In his estimation, Media Philosophy could potentially evolve into a modern "prima philosophia" (Margreiter 2003, 151). It is important to note, however, that Margreiter isn't advocating for some rigid, modernist super-discipline rooted in old-school foundationalism. Rather, he is calling for a critical discourse that must accompany every single act of human knowing.

Do you agree that we should add a prefix to the topic title? I was thinking of something along the lines of "I think, therefore I game — the philosophy of computer games," or perhaps something similar to that. I am honestly not entirely sure if such a change fits with the overall concept of the thread as you envisioned it.

Jerry Murphy3 said:Honestly, I'd say it's pretty slim. If you look at most game developers, there's almost zero connection to Philosophy. In fact, if there's any underlying "philosophy" driving the industry, it's usually just "make a fortune and chase the fame."

Please stay on topic. If you stick to the actual subject at hand, I am certain a few other members here will step in to correct you. This discussion isn't merely about those cheap mobile game apps that cost a couple of dollars and are downloaded by hundreds of millions of people in China. Stefano Gualeni He is a game designer and a professional philosopher at the same time—a forty-two-year-old man. In fact, he is the very same individual mentioned in the introductory comment of this thread and in the article itself. Self-reflexive video games: some observations and corollaries regarding virtual worlds as philosophical artifacts.There is an overwhelming amount of literature available on this subject. However, the real question we have to confront is one of engagement: how much does this actually matter to us? Do we truly have the bandwidth, the interest, or even the time to follow these developments closely? It is one thing to have the resources at our fingertips, but quite another to find the genuine inclination to pursue them.

steelridge58 said:

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..

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.

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.
🙂
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.
🙂
My take on Berkeley's idealism is basically built on Russell's critique of it. In the world of computer games, "to be" really just means "to be perceived." If nobody is actually playing the game, it’s nothing more than a massive string of ones and zeros—just bits of data sitting there. The console essentially steps in to play the role of God in that specific version of idealism; when there isn't a subject (the player) around, the hardware itself is what "perceives," or rather, executes the code.

I’ll get around to posting about Heidegger and "virtual presence" in a few days once I actually have some breathing room. I need to dig deeper into Heidegger first—honestly, I might just be seeing connections that aren't even there. Just one thing though: look at how Sony uses "presence" as nothing more than a marketing buzzword to move their VR headsets.

The presence of absence.

ruggedraven36 said:The presence of absence.

Yeah, exactly. You're right there, totally immersed because you've got a headset on, swapping out real life for a virtual one. Your avatar and how you interact with people online makes your presence felt to other players. But you're completely checked out from the real world. That's why I'm not really feeling the VR hype—I'll stick to "traditional" gaming on a monitor or a TV any day.

Eric Newman75 said: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:

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.
🙂
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.
🙂
First off, using a diminutive doesn't define what something is. Johan Huizinga dedicated an entire book to play as a cultural phenomenon—he analyzed and explained it extensively—and that absolutely includes video games. Look at our everyday language: we talk about children's play, social play, fair play, games of chance, wordplay, games of luck, dirty games... none of those use diminutives. Calling them "video games" is just the logical linguistic evolution of that sequence.

Second, gaming is serious business. And I'm not just talking about the grueling work put in by programmers, designers, writers, and musicians... We're talking about an industry moving hundreds of millions of dollars, where massive tournaments are held all over the world where top-tier players can walk away with huge payouts.

Third, games are akin to film; they're arguably the eighth art. Using a patronizing little term like "little games" doesn't capture that essence at all.

And fourth, they represent a subculture—a way of life that runs parallel to mainstream cultural and social life. Honestly, despite the existence of officially recognized, tradition-steeped culture, this subculture has managed to survive and thrive, even when it's been at odds with the establishment. For the longest time, gamers were misunderstood "fanatics" or "addicts" supposedly running away from their responsibilities. They were constantly labeled, and people were even suggesting they needed medical intervention. This community doesn't deserve to be treated like children, nor should the things they are passionate about be belittled with diminutive labels.
First off, using a diminutive doesn't define what something is. Johan Huizinga dedicated an entire book to play as a cultural phenomenon—he analyzed and explained it extensively—and that absolutely includes video games. Look at our everyday language: we talk about children's play, social play, fair play, games of chance, wordplay, games of luck, dirty games... none of those use diminutives. Calling them "video games" is just the logical linguistic evolution of that sequence.

Second, gaming is serious business. And I'm not just talking about the grueling work put in by programmers, designers, writers, and musicians... We're talking about an industry moving hundreds of millions of dollars, where massive tournaments are held all over the world where top-tier players can walk away with huge payouts.

Third, games are akin to film; they're arguably the eighth art. Using a patronizing little term like "little games" doesn't capture that essence at all.

And fourth, they represent a subculture—a way of life that runs parallel to mainstream cultural and social life. Honestly, despite the existence of officially recognized, tradition-steeped culture, this subculture has managed to survive and thrive, even when it's been at odds with the establishment. For the longest time, gamers were misunderstood "fanatics" or "addicts" supposedly running away from their responsibilities. They were constantly labeled, and people were even suggesting they needed medical intervention. This community doesn't deserve to be treated like children, nor should the things they are passionate about be belittled with diminutive labels.
There are actually even academic studies on video games happening here in the States

and some high schools are even offering it as a new specialized track

Sandra Murphy33 said:

steelridge58 As I’ve observed before, the reality of the situation is far more complex than most people care to admit. It isn't just about surface-level observations; it's about understanding the underlying mechanics at play here. When you look closely at how these systems actually function, the cracks start to show. Most people prefer the comfort of a simple narrative, but if you want to get anywhere meaningful, you have to deal with the messy, unvarnished truth. It’s a wearying process, certainly, but ignoring the structural flaws won't make them disappear.
I stumbled upon an interesting point while reading recently, specifically regarding how certain digital environments align with philosophical theory. Technically speaking, every virtual world serves as a silent materialization of what we would recognize as an idealistic perspective—or, if you want to get extreme, a radical version of idealism itself.
Subjective idealism is a concept that often gets tossed around in academic circles, usually accompanied by a sense of intellectual pretension. At its core, the argument is straightforward, if somewhat unsettling: the idea that reality, as we know it, is fundamentally dependent on the mind. In this view, there is no "objective" world existing independently of perception. Objects don't just sit there in space waiting to be noticed; they exist only insofar as they are being perceived. It’s a perspective that strips away the comfort of a solid, external universe. If you follow this logic to its conclusion, the physical world becomes little more than a collection of mental impressions. It suggests that what we call "matter" is actually just a byproduct of sensory experience. While it sounds like something pulled straight from a fever dream, it presents a rigorous challenge to how we define existence itself. Of course, most people find this impossible to swallow. We have an innate intuition that the chair beneath us or the skyscraper in downtown Chicago remains exactly where it is, whether we are looking at it or not. To deny that objective stability feels like walking on thin air. Yet, when you dig into the mechanics of perception, the distinction between the thing itself and our internal representation of that thing starts to blur. It forces you to confront the possibility that our entire grasp of reality is nothing more than a highly organized hallucination..

Subjective idealism is essentially just one specific branch of idealism—though "immaterialism" might actually be a more accurate way to describe it. It’s the school of thought most famously associated with George Berkeley. The core argument here is that material objects don't truly exist in any physical sense; instead, there is only the mind and its various mental contents.

Well, I feel compelled to weigh in here, though I’ll be approaching this from a non-dualistic perspective. 🙂
According to this doctrine, both the body—as physical matter—and the mind are created entities. In this view, the mind itself possesses a sort of "material" quality; it isn't the final, ultimate reality. That distinction belongs solely to consciousness.
The mind would essentially be identical to the body—or rather, the body and matter itself would simply be the mind as perceived by someone else.
Furthermore, one has to consider whether our mental content is largely just a reflection of the external material world—specifically when dealing with what is often termed the "lower mind," or that purely instrumental level of reason.

I’d like to build on this by posing a series of questions that remain largely unanswered—issues that I’ve encountered while digging through several academic papers and studies relevant to this discussion.

Are our physical and virtual identities truly distinct entities, or are they merely different manifestations of what we define as being?
Is humanity’s future inherently destined to be a binary struggle between fiction and reality? It’s a question that feels increasingly heavy as we drift further from a shared sense of truth. We seem to be approaching a crossroads where we are forced to choose between a tangible, perhaps unpalatable, reality and a curated, manufactured fiction that offers more comfort but less substance. If we look at the trajectory of modern discourse, the line isn't just blurring; it's being intentionally dismantled. We live in an era where digital constructs—simulated experiences, algorithmic echo chambers, and hyper-real personas—often carry more weight than the physical world they inhabit. This creates a predictable tension. On one side, you have the raw, often chaotic facts of existence. On the other, you have the polished, digestible narratives designed to satisfy our psychological cravings for order and validation. The dilemma is whether we can actually sustain a society if we lose the ability to distinguish between the two. A civilization built on fiction is a house of cards; it looks impressive until the wind shifts. However, a life lived purely within the constraints of cold, hard reality can feel hollow without the capacity for imagination and myth-making. The real danger isn't necessarily the presence of fiction, but the total surrender to it. Once we decide that a convenient lie is more useful than a difficult truth, the concept of "reality" becomes obsolete. At that point, we aren't choosing between two paths anymore; we are simply choosing which illusion we want to inhabit while the actual foundation of our world erodes beneath us. Whether this dichotomy is an unavoidable evolution of the human condition or a trap we are actively building for ourselves remains to be seen.
Can high-level virtual reality technology serve as the definitive answer to the crisis of humanism? As S. Gualeni argues, we shouldn't just view virtual worlds as mere escapism; rather, they need to be understood, studied, and utilized as the very framework within which a new kind of humanism has already begun to take shape.
Which identity carries any actual weight? Is it the one rooted in physicality—grounded in our biology, our reason, and the tangible reality of "becoming"? Or is it the one built on virtuality, the endless cycle of fictionalization, and the quiet drift into pure simulation? 😉 Is there some kind of shortage?
What exactly constitutes what makes someone "real"—and why we so frequently wrap that word, "real," in quotation marks? I’m talking about the concept of a true identity.
Is it his physical presence—that tangible, heavy sense of reality—or is it rather that intricate, internal web of sensations, perceptions, and fleeting thoughts?

Well, that's certainly one way to start a conversation. Not much to go on there, is there? If you're looking for a deep dive or a reasoned debate, you might want to provide a bit more substance first. I'll be here when you've actually got something worth discussing. 😁
Only one word comes to mind when I think about this "new humanism."
The pacification of instinct. ....
To be clear, I’m not just talking about gaming here; I’m referring to any kind of digital interaction, period.
Is pacification inherently synonymous with "numbing," or is it strictly a positive process? I find myself wondering if this phenomenon carries an unavoidable negative undertone.
It all hinges on how much the external material world undergoes this same "pacification" alongside us. The real question is whether this process is sweeping through the entirety of the living natural world at once.

Let’s run a thought experiment: what happens to the physical world if we all just retreat further into our screens, essentially becoming prisoners within our own four walls? We saw those clips during the initial lockdowns—wildlife wandering freely through empty streets and crossing highways without a care in the world. But you have to wonder how much of that was just a curated simulation. Most people lack basic digital literacy, and since programmers often carry their own ideological biases or agendas, they can easily feed us any distorted version of reality on a screen.

Forgive me if I’m overanalyzing this, but if the entire "normal" world shifts into a virtual one—if we just bury ourselves behind monitors and never look up—will access to the physical world be reserved solely for the military and the police? 🙄
The military and law enforcement were originally established to protect the citizenry; that hasn't been their function for a very long time.
The media was also meant to keep the public informed; instead, they spend more time spreading disinformation than actually providing facts.
So, we have three core pillars of the System that were theoretically designed to serve the people, yet they have all pivoted to serve the elites. We are essentially feeding the very mechanisms used against us. Where exactly does that trajectory end?
(Side note: I’ve started watching The Handmaid's Tale .... 😢 )

Well, if we’re talking about a "new" version, I assume we mean a creative one, and since I recently read that the priority for a new humanism within our global society should be fostering a renewed sense of respect for diversity and cultural variety—while supporting media evolution to strengthen a new culture of peace—then pacifying our instincts doesn't actually sound like a bad thing at all; in fact, it sounds quite positive.

But is pacification just another way of saying "numbing," meaning, is it purely a positive movement, or does it carry a darker, negative undertone?

If we look at pacification as a form of numbing—like what you see in the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
then naturally, that carries a negative connotation, because that kind of pacification is achieved through dullness or anesthesia; it's basically the effect of a sedative, that specific type of emptiness
or perhaps it's just mindless consumption, escaping into distractions and pure self-indulgence, which is what you mentioned earlier here.

That would be something else entirely—a complete caricature of the new humanism we're discussing, which carries such a positive charge.

However, if we view virtual worlds as philosophical mediators, and using interactive digital technology as a medium to test, develop, and spread philosophical concepts, problems, and hypotheses in ways that go beyond traditional text, then interactive digital simulations (according to S. Gualeni) represent the very context where this new humanism has already begun to emerge.

And this ties in perfectly with these points:

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.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said: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.
🙂

My take on Berkeley's idealism is basically built on Russell's critique of it. In the world of computer games, "to be" really just means "to be perceived." If nobody is actually playing the game, it’s nothing more than a massive string of ones and zeros—just bits of data sitting there. The console essentially steps in to play the role of God in that specific version of idealism; when there isn't a subject (the player) around, the hardware itself is what "perceives," or rather, executes the code.

I’ll get around to posting about Heidegger and "virtual presence" in a few days once I actually have some breathing room. I need to dig deeper into Heidegger first—honestly, I might just be seeing connections that aren't even there. Just one thing though: look at how Sony uses "presence" as nothing more than a marketing buzzword to move their VR headsets.
The link just sort of jumped out at me through pure association, but as I started digging deeper, I actually found that there's genuine inspiration drawn from Heidegger's work within the field of the philosophy of technology, where those specific insights are being blended right into video game design.

You might want to take a look at this text.

Steven Clark2 said:

I must admit, I often find myself struggling to articulate my thoughts clearly, but I feel compelled to weigh in on this. There is something deeply profound about the way we interact with digital spaces, much like how one might approach a complex philosophical problem. It isn't just about the technology itself, but the underlying structure of our engagement with it. I sometimes worry that I am overthinking these matters, yet I cannot shake the feeling that there is a significant layer of meaning beneath the surface of our virtual interactions. ruggedraven36 says:
What exactly is...🙂 It seems I have failed to uncover any mention of computer games within the 18th or 19th-century papyri and parchments, nor did I find anything regarding them in Hegel's Gospel volumes. Given my lack of success, I suppose reductionism is quite acceptable now.

The Gospel according to Hegel? I was under the impression we were discussing apocryphal texts, but frankly, it makes little difference to me. 😁

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.

I suspect you might have tripped up somewhere back in the 18th or perhaps even the 19th century. Anyone who actually plays video games will understand exactly what I mean.

I find myself returning to this particular subject quite often, though I admit my attempts to articulate it clearly are frequently met with a certain degree of clumsy inadequacy on my part. It is a topic that demands a level of rigor I sometimes struggle to maintain, yet the importance of the inquiry remains undeniable. ruggedraven36 says:
That is a solid list. 👍

I feel I should perhaps add a point of discussion that frequently surfaces—one that touches upon several items on your list. It is a topic often brought up by Wand1, though he doesn't contribute to these threads quite as often as I would like. I am referring to the so-called...I find myself returning, quite frequently, to the complexities of gamma theory. It is a subject that demands a certain level of intellectual rigor, one that I often feel I struggle to meet, yet I cannot seem to pull myself away from its intricacies. There is something profoundly captivating about how strategic interaction shapes our reality."

I honestly have to wonder how you managed to stumble upon that. Just how much experience do you actually have in this field? To my mind, gamma theory is such an incredibly complex subject that it probably deserves its own dedicated thread entirely. Looking at the article you cited, I found it quite interesting that they even included a specific subheading for it. Philosophy...which was, quite frankly, what piqued my interest most of all.

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:

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.
🙂
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.
🙂
I am always in favor of receiving thoughtful and practical suggestions, though I must admit I am somewhat hesitant to simply pick up a book and start reading without further hesitation. 😁

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:

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.
🙂
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.
🙂
Are you suggesting we are talking about Media Philosophy? 😁 From the Preface of the Book Virtual Worlds as Philosophical Tools: How to Philosophize with a Digital Hammer (2015):

Do you agree that we should add a prefix to the topic title? I was thinking of something along the lines of "I think, therefore I game — the philosophy of computer games," or perhaps something similar to that. I am honestly not entirely sure if such a change fits with the overall concept of the thread as you envisioned it.

Please stay on topic. If you stick to the actual subject at hand, I am certain a few other members here will step in to correct you. This discussion isn't merely about those cheap mobile game apps that cost a couple of dollars and are downloaded by hundreds of millions of people in China. Stefano Gualeni He is a game designer and a professional philosopher at the same time—a forty-two-year-old man. In fact, he is the very same individual mentioned in the introductory comment of this thread and in the article itself. Self-reflexive video games: some observations and corollaries regarding virtual worlds as philosophical artifacts.There is an overwhelming amount of literature available on this subject. However, the real question we have to confront is one of engagement: how much does this actually matter to us? Do we truly have the bandwidth, the interest, or even the time to follow these developments closely? It is one thing to have the resources at our fingertips, but quite another to find the genuine inclination to pursue them.
I am always in favor of receiving thoughtful and practical suggestions, though I must admit I am somewhat hesitant to simply pick up a book and start reading without further hesitation. 😁

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.
🙂
Are you suggesting we are talking about Media Philosophy? 😁 From the Preface of the Book Virtual Worlds as Philosophical Tools: How to Philosophize with a Digital Hammer (2015):

Do you agree that we should add a prefix to the topic title? I was thinking of something along the lines of "I think, therefore I game — the philosophy of computer games," or perhaps something similar to that. I am honestly not entirely sure if such a change fits with the overall concept of the thread as you envisioned it.

Please stay on topic. If you stick to the actual subject at hand, I am certain a few other members here will step in to correct you. This discussion isn't merely about those cheap mobile game apps that cost a couple of dollars and are downloaded by hundreds of millions of people in China. Stefano Gualeni He is a game designer and a professional philosopher at the same time—a forty-two-year-old man. In fact, he is the very same individual mentioned in the introductory comment of this thread and in the article itself. Self-reflexive video games: some observations and corollaries regarding virtual worlds as philosophical artifacts.There is an overwhelming amount of literature available on this subject. However, the real question we have to confront is one of engagement: how much does this actually matter to us? Do we truly have the bandwidth, the interest, or even the time to follow these developments closely? It is one thing to have the resources at our fingertips, but quite another to find the genuine inclination to pursue them.
Do you agree that we should add a prefix to the topic title? I was thinking of something along the lines of "I think, therefore I game — the philosophy of computer games," or perhaps something similar to that. I am honestly not entirely sure if such a change fits with the overall concept of the thread as you envisioned it.

Please stay on topic. If you stick to the actual subject at hand, I am certain a few other members here will step in to correct you. This discussion isn't merely about those cheap mobile game apps that cost a couple of dollars and are downloaded by hundreds of millions of people in China. Stefano Gualeni He is a game designer and a professional philosopher at the same time—a forty-two-year-old man. In fact, he is the very same individual mentioned in the introductory comment of this thread and in the article itself. Self-reflexive video games: some observations and corollaries regarding virtual worlds as philosophical artifacts.There is an overwhelming amount of literature available on this subject. However, the real question we have to confront is one of engagement: how much does this actually matter to us? Do we truly have the bandwidth, the interest, or even the time to follow these developments closely? It is one thing to have the resources at our fingertips, but quite another to find the genuine inclination to pursue them.
I can go ahead and change it and we'll just see how it looks,
I actually swapped the original title for this shorter one earlier, but let's give it a shot
—and if it turns out to be a total mess (like if it's way too long), it's easy enough to just rename it again.

Dark Souls, anyone home?
The whole concept of fire—this idea of prolonging the Age of Fire through the use of Undead and "Hollows"—is fascinating. Specifically, their origin story: are these just players who simply gave up? And more importantly, who actually provided the fuel for them to complete this task, effectively burning themselves alive in the process? I find myself wondering if this is even a logical move for a dying world, or if you're all just dragging out its inevitable agony.

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.
There’s this philosopher and game designer, Jim Preston, who recently weighed in on the whole "are video games art" debate, and honestly, it reminded me of those heated, late-night arguments we tend to get going right here on this forum. After one particularly intense discussion, he basically told gamers they should just stop stressing over the whole debate entirely because
'Just leave video games alone; art in modern culture doesn't really have a fixed or stable definition anymore.'

I think there are plenty of reasons why things ended up this way, but if I had to pin down one of the biggest culprits, it would be how the 20th-century avant-garde completely flipped the script on what art is supposed to be. Those movements shattered all our traditional notions regarding the role and context of an artwork, and as the century progressed, it became increasingly difficult to define art based solely on its shape or its intended function
—context became the king of the hill, a fact made undeniable by the way Duchamp's urinal exposed just how arbitrary these definitions can truly be.

https://monoskop.org/images/f/fd/Bog...14_spreads.pdf