I changed all references to monkeys to insects (including in the article's title), in order to match Nietzsche's terminology in the opening quotation. I guess people might get confused by all these highly specialized philosophical terms, but basically the terms "monkeys", "insects", "slaves", "worms", "sheep", "rabble", "mass", "mob", etc. all refer to the same thing. It's like the concept "God", which also goes by a thousand names. Each philosopher simply picks the terms which most closely match his writing style and the point he is trying to make. My problem is that I like all of them, so I end up alternating between them from article to article, and sometimes even in a single article, as in this one.
So the new url is this:
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_insect ... heir_laws/
Moving on, here is the entire paragraph from which the opening quote was taken, for those who want to follow up on the philosophical foundations on which the article is based (Nietzsche's passage is only half of these foundations, the other half is in the concept of the simulacrum, as analyzed by Baudrillard in too many places to list).
Permission to speak! -- The demagogic character and the intention to appeal to the masses is at present common to all political parties: on account of this intention they are all compelled to transform their principles into great al fresco stupidities and thus to paint them on the wall. This is no longer alterable, indeed it would be pointless to raise so much as a finger against it; for in this domain there apply the words of Voltaire: quand la populace se mêle de raisonner, tout est perdu.* Since this has happened one has to accommodate oneself to the new conditions as one accommodates oneself when an earthquake has displaced the former boundaries and contours of the ground and altered the value of one's property. Moreover, if the purpose of all politics really is to make life endurable for as many as possible, then these as-many-as-possible are entitled to determine what they understand by an endurable life; if they trust to their intellect also to discover the right means of attaining this goal, what good is there in doubting it? They want for once to forge for themselves their own fortunes and misfortunes; and if this feeling of self-determination, pride in the five or six ideas their head contains and brings forth, in fact renders their life so pleasant to them they are happy to bear the calamitous consequences of their narrow-mindedness, there is little to be objected to, always presupposing that this narrow-mindedness does not go so far as to demand that everything should become politics in this sense, that everyone should live and work according to such a standard. For a few must first of all be allowed, now more than ever, to refrain from politics and to step a little aside: they too are prompted to this by pleasure in self-determination; and there may also be a degree of pride attached to staying silent when too many, or even just many, are speaking. Then these few must be forgiven if they fail to take the happiness of the many, whether by the many one understands nations or social classes, so very seriously and are now and then guilty of an ironic posture; for their seriousness is located elsewhere, their happiness is something quite different, their goal is not to be encompassed by any clumsy hand that has only five fingers. Finally, from time to time there comes to them -- what it will certainly be hardest to concede to them but must be conceded to them nonetheless -- a moment when they emerge from their silent solitude and again try the power of their lungs: for then they call to one another like those gone astray in a wood in order to locate and encourage one another; whereby much becomes audible, to be sure, that sounds ill to ears for which it is not intended. -- Soon afterwards, though, it is again still in the wood, so still that the buzzing, humming and fluttering of the countless insects that live in, above and beneath it can again clearly be heard.
* When the mob joins in and adds its voice, all is lost. --Tr
From
Human, All Too Human, paragraph 438.
One more point:
MjFrancis wrote:So many gamers can’t understand why words like visceral and violence don’t belong in a video game review
I wouldn't say they don't belong there. As long as one does not overdo it, these words can be extremely useful in game reviews. Because, you see, though violence does not exist in videogames,
the emotions that violence engenders in people in the real world are often, to some small, highly attenuated degree, also engendered in people who play videogames. This is the magic of simulation: it creates an effect where a cause is lacking. It sort of creates something out of an almost pure nothing. Moreover, as the quality of the simulation increases, these emotions also increase, and become more and more faithful to their real counterparts. So you can expect to see more and more games called "visceral" or "violent" in the future.
And visceral they will be -- because this word refers to our emotions, which are always real -- even when engendered by simulation.
Violent they won't be -- the games at any rate, except in a metaphorical sense. What will be violent will be again our emotions -- our emotional reactions to the simulated events.
All of this does not in any way come into contradiction with what was stated in the article. Violent videogames do not exist. Only violent
emotional reactions to videogames --
even to "non-violent" ones...
