Theory

[icycalm]

Rereading the thread, I caught a howler:

The sense of difference between, and therefore dominance over, a less skilled player by a vastly more skilled player can be intoxicating.

lol, not only is it not intoxicating, it is in fact downright boring. The only effect playing a vastly less skilled player will have IS TO MAKE YOU QUIT THE GAME out of sheer boredom. The intoxication comes from playing against people who are at least as skilled as you, if not in fact more so -- i.e., ultimately, FROM LOSING; FROM BEING CHALLENGED. Only a habitual loser could dream up that dominating a noob could possibly be anything other than boring.

[El Chaos]

Found a typo, at the very end of the sixth paragraph:

(— and for what other purpose have claims of objectivity every been used on earth?)

[icycalm]

Fixed, thank you.

In other news, there is some proper discussion on my preface here:

http://the-ghetto.org/forums/index.php? ... 51#msg6951

Slaves watch movies and stuff to have their morals reinforced. This is what they call meaning.

Yes, they call meaning the reinforcement of their morals. But that is not WHY they watch movies and stuff. The reason they watch movies and stuff is the same we all do, it's just that they are too pretentious and hypocritical to admit it.

But anyway. Only person who can outsmart Icycalm is GOD really, by SMITING him before he finishes his EVIL book, thus destroying the validity of his argument, his argument, and icycalm at the same time.

lol, that's absolutely true. Except the thing about the "validity". If He destroyes me before I finish the book, then I won't have made my argument yet, so its validity will not be at all in question.

I think your understanding of the article is wrong. It is pretty straight forward:

Games are simulations of the real world, what is the meaning of the world or the study of the world/universe?

What I don't understand how doing science is seen as evil by the slaves:

Because it's not learning a moral story and becoming a better person but instead the "selfish" desire for knowledge and therefore power?

Okay I think this is it:

Yep. Put another way, how does one become better at a game? Who IS the "better player"? Answer: he who can defeat all the other players more consistently. Hence, if you are one of the habitual losers, and moreoever a bigot who is incapable of accepting defeat graciously, the most "evil" player. Simple as that.

I think Nietzsches description of the origin of slave morality it goes like this:
Masters are powerful and do as they wish, slaves be slaves, hatin on the masters.
The slaves secretly envy the masters but they can never become masters.
This is where resentment comes in, and the inversion of morality, everything that only the masters can do is evil, and therefore the opposite is good.
Slaves didn't chose this morality, it was grown organically out of resentment, and now you mix this with religion and you have an absolute moral code.
So slave morality is just a device to alleviate the pain a slave feels when seeing a master.
So slaves being altruistic isn't something "good" because they are just doing it to spite the masters, it is not really their choice.

Only a master can be truly altruistic since he can chose between selfishness and helping someone out.
Or something like that.

That's a good summary for some dude on the internet. There are mistakes, but it's a good first pass.

I was just thinking, what will happen after he publishes his books:

1. They are ignored by academics
2. They are criticized by academics
3. The academics plagiarize his ideas without acknowledging him
4. The academics use his ideas and cite him
5. The academics wholly embrace his philosophy and litter their new papers with the word FAGOT

I kinda hope its 5. But I think 3 or 1 would be more likely.

It will be all five, and in the order you have presented them (with one exception: 2 and 3 should switch places). In Schopenahuers's words, the three stages of truth are:

1. It is ridiculed
2. It is fiercely resisted
3. It is accepted as self-evident

The only real question is the time-frame in which these stages will take place. In my case I say we'll reach the last stage within 5 to 10 years. 15 tops.

[icycalm]

and so on and so forth for every spurious category of games invented (as they always are, if one looks closely enough) in order to excuse incompetence, weakness and bad taste on the part of poor designers, weak players and bad critics (who, naturally enough, recognize and understand each other)

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25012/25012-pdf.pdf

Brunnhilda, who according to the old plan had to retire with a song in honour of free love, consoling the world with the hope of a socialistic Utopia in which “all will be well”; now gets something else to do. She must first study Schopenhauer. She must first versify the fourth book of “The World as Will and Idea.” Wagner was saved.… Joking apart, this was a salvation. The service which Wagner owes to Schopenhauer is incalculable. It was the philosopher of decadence who allowed the artist of decadence to find himself.—

[icycalm]

http://www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comm ... in_gaming/

What puzzles me is this: if videogames are escapism, and they seem to be, does that mean a maximally happy, satisfied person would not play them at all? Why would a person happy with their life want to escape from it?

Yet, I find that the happier I am, the more I enjoy videogames. And when I'm unhappy about something in my life, I find myself unable to properly escape into the video game; my thoughts are constantly returning to my problem. It seems paradoxical, but there must be something I'm missing.

I'll answer this because it is from the person who wrote this: http://culture.vg/forum/topic?p=22383#p22383

It's like wondering why you can't be bothered to sit through a 6-hour opera when you are starving to death.

I don't know, man... maybe because you are starving to death and have more pressing matters to think of than entertainment?

"Escapism" doesn't mean escape from a hellish situation. It's not like the solution to an Afghan child that's been hunted down by killers or whatever is to pull out a Game Boy and "escape". It's just another form of relaxation. And naturally enough, you will have more time and be in a better mood for relaxing activities when everything in your life is going grand. If your girlfriend just dumped you, for example, or if you are in a hospital bed and fighting for your life, you will hardly be in a mood to start up a 100-hour JRPG or 1CC Metal Slug.

It's not exactly rocket science, I don't think.

As for this:

What puzzles me is this: if videogames are escapism, and they seem to be, does that mean a maximally happy, satisfied person would not play them at all? Why would a person happy with their life want to escape from it?

Art is almost as important to us humans as sleeping. If the "escapism" definition troubles you here, use the "inspiration" one. Art inspires us. The James Bond films, for example, inspired me to be good at dozens of sports and other activities. So no matter how happy your life may be, you will always have room for more inspiration. And that's where the artists come in.