Theory

[EightEyes]

http://insomnia.ac/essays/on_authorship_and_style/

Great addition to the site!

Quite a lot of this material was new to me, and I'll be going back and reading through it multiple times.

Men should use common words to say uncommon things, but they do the reverse. We find them trying to envelop trivial ideas in grand words and to dress their very ordinary thoughts in the most extraordinary expressions and the most outlandish, artificial, and rarest phrases.

This should be on the front page of the internet.

[mees]

Man, I get so confused trying to understand philosophical terms. Like, I'm reading Nietzsche alongside these essays, and "the will," is giving me some serious problems.

Hopefully I will have the will to power... through it!

[icycalm]

Yes, I know which passages you are referring to. Here's a quick rule of thumb for you: when Schopenhauer and Nietzsche differ on some point, Nietzsche's view is the correct one.

In any case, there are a couple of mistakes in these essays, and the greatest one just so happens to turn around the use of the concept "will". So I'll make a little effort to explain it here.

Schopenhauer says:

Reading and learning are things that anyone can do of his own free will; but not so thinking. Thinking must be kindled, like a fire by a draught; it must be sustained by some interest in the matter in hand. This interest may be of purely objective kind, or merely subjective. The latter comes into play only in things that concern us personally. Objective interest is confined to heads that think by nature; to whom thinking is as natural as breathing; and they are very rare.

http://insomnia.ac/essays/on_thinking_for_oneself/

This is, strictly speaking, wrong, because "objective interest" is a contradictio in adjecto. Interest is always subjective -- no one can be interested in something "objectively".

Still, we can see what he means by this, and what he means is to a certain extent correct. The geniune "thinker" does indeed at first glance seem to have a second, "objective" intellect, which looks at problems from a detached persepective, and is willing to follow them wherever they may lead, even if that means endangering his own security and well-being. But that is only the "first glance" conclusion. If you look deeper you will always find an ulterior motive. Just because someone might risk himself for something doesn't mean that he has no reasons for doing so. Quite the opposite in fact! The more you are willing to risk the more must be at stake for you! -- This is a universal law.

Here's another passage involving the will:

No difference of rank, position, or birth, is so great as the gulf that separates the countless millions who use their head only in the service of their belly, in other words, look upon it as an instrument of the will, and those very few and rare persons who have the courage to say: No! it is too good for that; my head shall be active only in its own service;

http://insomnia.ac/essays/on_genius/

Again, we understand what he is saying, and it is correct up to a point, but only up to a point. Because the truth is that even the "genius" uses his intellect as an instrument of the "belly" -- he cannot do otherwise -- only the belly of the genius is so much larger in size than anyone else's, it requires so much more to sate its appetite, that he is willing to take greater risks than anyone else in order to achieve this. And the quest for insight, that noble quest which Schopenhauer idealizes (and therefore falsifies), is simply the ultimate thing one can pursue. -- It can also ultimately prove to be the most useful and the most profitable. -- Schopenhauer is just being hypocritical at this point. He is perhaps the least hypocritical of all philosophers, though, so we should excuse him for this slip up.

There is a lot more to be said on this subject, but this should do for now.

[mees]

Thanks icy. I really appreciate your criticism on the second passage, in particular.

[Cpt. Coin-op]

I want to make sure I understand his POV, so correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.

Schopenhauer is an extreme atheistic pessimist, a cynic, and very much a loner. (In which case he is psychologist I can finally connect with, though I have yet to any major reading on Baudrillard, Nietzche, and etc.*)

He believes that one should live and think for himself because allowing the influence of other people (and their opinions) will rob an individual of his identity, followed by his ability to think and feel for himself. As a result, exceptional individuals desire to be alone and seek out solace because they find other people (idiots) to be annoying.

Regarding professionals/"men of learning": They are in fact just the opposite because they have not thought for themselves, but instead taken knowledge from others. In other words, their claims to wisdom are false because they have used others to think for themselves.**

Again, this is just from a first-time-through read, but I'd appreciate your affirmation on this. (Not just icy's, but from anyone who understands it better than I, of which I am sure there are several.)

*So far I've read everything you've posted on your articles and forums, but nothing beyond that.
**I found this difficult to put into words, so I apologize if this sounds awkward.

[EightEyes]

He believes that one should live and think for himself because allowing the influence of other people (and their opinions) will rob an individual of his identity, followed by his ability to think and feel for himself. As a result, exceptional individuals desire to be alone and seek out solace because they find other people (idiots) to be annoying.

My understanding of this essay is that he is describing the natural state of the genius (in the true sense of the word, and of which there are only a few in a generation, if that). I certainly didn't take this as a prescription for the rest of us.

I didn't take it, in other words, as a guide to what I ought to do, but rather an insight into how a (very) few remarkable others simply are. It's not as though this is a path one can choose, or even devote one's life to working towards.

Of course, I am here referring to those who have not only the courage, but also the call, and therefore the right, to order the head to quit the service of the will; with a result that proves the sacrifice to have been worth the making.

I'm not holding myself up as anything approaching an expert on this, by replying, by the way! It's just that I've read through this essay a few times over the last couple of days, and it's fresh in my mind.

I'm actually continuing to re-read this essay, because there's something in it that makes me uneasy. I have some assumptions I'm quite fond of that are challenged here, but I'm having a hard time putting together a logical argument for them.

As an aside - I just love this guy as a writer, generally. His similes really put a smile on my face. The brain likened to a parasite, and the pen likened to a walking stick have particularly struck a chord with me. Brilliant stuff.

[JoshF]

I liked the essay as well. Maybe it's the reason I cranked out almost an entire review today.

[AndoBeemer]

Am I the only one that sees the irony in copy-pasting Schopenhauer's essays on the subjects of authorship, style, and thinking for oneself to explain, "Much that has already been discussed on this website, and much that is to follow"?

Just saying.

[JoshF]

Not really. I laughed at the quote "not of writers on the method of distilling brandy" though, since that's kinda what video game journalism is. At least we know how to make a good wine here.

[icycalm]

I want to make sure I understand his POV, so correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.

I've no idea what a "POV" is, and you don't even need to tell me: I am sure it's some stupid neologism better suited to someplace like gamefaqs.

Schopenhauer is an extreme atheistic pessimist, a cynic, and very much a loner.

Again, please keep this shit for the "blogosphere" or wherever. Ridiculous labels such as "extreme atheistic pessimist" are useless when discussing philosophy. Every man is different, and how much more so every philosopher. So keep your labels for the vegetable section of the local supermarket.

As for the rest... EightEyes answered it quite well. I'll add a few things:

Regarding professionals/"men of learning": They are in fact just the opposite

No, they are not the opposite. They are indeed "men of learning". They are just not "men of insight".

because they have not thought for themselves, but instead taken knowledge from others.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that "taking knowledge from others" is a bad thing, otherwise every time one wanted to speak, one would have to reinvent the alphabet. This is a very delicate point. Schopenhauer himself took knowledge from others -- he wasn't born in a vacuum. He took a great deal of "knowledge" from both Plato and Kant, for example. The difference is that he worked out all this knowledge for himself, before choosing which parts of it to accept and which to reject. What's more, he used the knowledge he accepted as part of his own, new and unique system of thought. The university professor creates no such system: he only reads everything that has been written and criticizes it -- but never creates anything himself. But this is the ultimate test of understanding: the ability to go a step further than what you have read.

In other words, their claims to wisdom are false because they have used others to think for themselves.

No, their claims to wisdom are false because they are not wise.

[icycalm]

Am I the only one that sees the irony in copy-pasting Schopenhauer's essays on the subjects of authorship, style, and thinking for oneself to explain, "Much that has already been discussed on this website, and much that is to follow"?

Nah, you just don't understand the meaning of the word 'irony'.

Here's an example of something that has already been discussed on this website, and which these essays will help readers better understand: New Games Journalism. Or journalism itself, for that matter. Or the pathetic results of the efforts of so called "game academics". Et cetera. Not to mention the reaction of the rest of the internet to this website, which is either rank hostility, or ignoring that reeks of preconcertion.

So yes, whoever understands these essays will have a much easier time understanding this website, as well as my upcoming book.


Edit: And I mean look -- look at the underhanded way you phrased your question, in your pathetic effort to make me look bad:

Am I the only one that sees the irony in copy-pasting Schopenhauer's essays on the subjects of authorship, style, and thinking for oneself to explain, "Much that has already been discussed on this website, and much that is to follow"?

I never said that Schopenhauer's essays would EXPLAIN my own essays -- that would have been ridiculous: Schopenhauer knew nothing about videogames. I said they will help readers understand them. Can you now see the difference between what I said and what you read? Or is that still beyond you?

[icycalm]

As an aside - I just love this guy as a writer, generally. His similes really put a smile on my face. The brain likened to a parasite, and the pen likened to a walking stick have particularly struck a chord with me. Brilliant stuff.

This is another reason I posted those essays on the frontpage, and as a series of updates as well, instead of all in one go. To give people who have spent their lives reading newspapers, magazines and blogs a taste of real writing. Tastes good, doesn't it? How could anyone take clowns like Tim Rogers or David Sirlin or Stephen Poole seriously after reading stuff like this? Or the "professors of gaming" I ridiculed in the other thread?

[raphael]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that "taking knowledge from others" is a bad thing, otherwise every time one wanted to speak, one would have to reinvent the alphabet. This is a very delicate point. Schopenhauer himself took knowledge from others -- he wasn't born in a vacuum. He took a great deal of "knowledge" from both Plato and Kant, for example. The difference is that he worked out all this knowledge for himself, before choosing which parts of it to accept and which to reject. What's more, he used the knowledge he accepted as part of his own, new and unique system of thought.

Too few people seem to realize that. After all, a human being is not very different from an ape without the knowledge that is transmitted from generations to generations. In order to think for oneself you first need to acquire the very tools of thinking (starting with the most important part: an elaborate language). The better the tools, the better the thinking.

But most people prefer to believe in the "geniuses theory" which could be summed something like: either you're born a genius and everything is easy to you, or your born with regular abilities and you don't have to blame yourself for anything.

I can't believe how many adults actually believe in something of this kind. So lazy !

this is the ultimate test of understanding: the ability to go a step further than what you have read.

When learning mathematics we used to see it like this:
If (and only if) you are able to reinvent a demonstration it means you understood it, which is good and means it has been transmitted to you, but in no way means you are as clever as the inventor of the original demonstration was, to prove yourself worth of such praise you'd have to step in the unknown and come up with something new.

[Gnarf]

I've no idea what a "POV" is, and you don't even need to tell me: I am sure it's some stupid neologism better suited to someplace like gamefaqs.

With "POV", he means "point of view".

However, the public is very much more interested in matter than in form, and it is for this very reason that it is behindhand in any high degree of culture. It is most laughable the way the public reveals its liking for matter in poetic works; it carefully investigates the real events or personal circumstances of the poet’s life which served to give the motif of his works; nay, finally, it finds these more interesting than the works themselves; it reads more about Goethe than what has been written by Goethe, and industriously studies the legend of Faust in preference to Goethe’s Faust itself.

I want to make sure I understand his POV, so correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.

Schopenhauer is an extreme atheistic pessimist, a cynic, and very much a loner.

Also,

Regarding professionals/"men of learning": They are in fact just the opposite

No, they are not the opposite. They are indeed "men of learning". They are just not "men of insight".

I think what he meant was that they are the opposite of what he was getting at in the paragraph before that. Not that the two terms are opposite of each other.

[Cpt. Coin-op]

icy, I apologize if abbreviations only muddle things up; I'll keep that in mind. I do not blog, nor do I post on GameFAQs, lol.

And EightEyes & icy, thanks for helping clear things up on my end. Rest assured I'll be re-reading these many times.

[mees]

When we gain access to the histories of China and of India, the endlessness of the subject-matter will reveal to us the defects in the study, and force our historians to see that the object of science is to recognize the many in the one, to perceive the rules in any given example, and to apply to the life of nations a knowledge of mankind; not to go on counting up facts ad infinitum.

I think this passage illustrates one of the main differences between Insomnia and other game-related sites. I can see where it leads into the ideas about sequels and genre especially, and ultimately every other theory presented in the various game-related articles.

[icycalm]

Yes, that's very perceptive of you. And when all is said and done there will be only a single sentence left, and it won't even be mine.

[mees]

Since the Internet has really let information pass between individuals almost effortlessly, I was thinking that the process of recognition (ie great minds find a work and begin subordinating lesser minds until the work finds mass acceptance) must necessarily be faster in our age.

Then I thought some more and it seems like the Internet has really just amplified the noise of the world a million times at least, and so the reverse is probably true.

Oh well.

[icycalm]

It is an intriguing question, and I have often thought about it.

Still, it doesn't seem to be any longer a very important one. It has been superceded by Baudrillard's conclusion that "We are in the era of events without consequences (and of theories without consequences)."

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/ ... ilism.html

If theories have no consequences, then whether they are accepted earlier or later -- or not at all -- makes no difference.

[icycalm]

Since the Internet has really let information pass between individuals almost effortlessly

Also, you will probably be astonished by what Baudrillard has to say about this (emphasis is mine):

The compulsion to operationalism gives rise to an operational paradox. It is not just that the order of the day is ‘making something worth something’: the fact is that it is better, if something is to be invested with value, FOR IT TO HAVE NO VALUE TO BEGIN WITH; better to know nothing in order to have things known; better to produce nothing in order to have things produced; AND BETER TO HAVE NOTHING TO SAY IF ONE SEEKS TO COMMUNICATE. All of which is part of the logic of things: as everyone knows, if you want to make people laugh, it is better not to be funny. The implications for communication and information networks are incontestable: in order for content to be conveyed as well and as quickly as possible, that content should come as close as possible to transparency and insignificance.

The above, published in 1990, explains perfectly clearly the current situation with online news sites, blogs and message boards. It's really wonderful how a single paragraph can basically shut up (in a manner of speaking) the entire internet.