Moderator: JC Denton
by Four » 23 Apr 2009 00:57
by icycalm » 23 Apr 2009 01:24
Nietzsche wrote:What is good? -- All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man.
What is bad? -- All that proceeds from weakness.
What is happiness? -- The feeling that power increases -- that a resistance is overcome.
Not contentment, but more power; not peace at all, but war; not virtue, but proficiency (virtue in the Renaissance style, virtu, virtue free of moralic acid).
The weak and ill-constituted shall perish: first principle of our philanthropy. And one shall help them to do so.
by icycalm » 23 Apr 2009 01:49
by Four » 24 Apr 2009 00:06
Analyzing fun "in videogames" won't get you anywhere.
In the videogame industry the word 'fun' is used much in the same way the word 'art' is
by icycalm » 24 Apr 2009 00:15
Four wrote:To be honest, I intended to raise the complaint that it wasn't fun to play videogames.
Four wrote:Someone playing a videogame is concentrated on overcoming a challenge and I'd have trouble telling that he's having fun from looking at him.
Four wrote:And when I'm playing a good videogame, I'm too absorbed to be aware of anything else.
Four wrote:It's like we don't like being conscious.
by icycalm » 01 Feb 2010 22:26
The novel's tone is darker and more serious than the film's, and the politically-motivated fighters of the novel became thieves pretending to be terrorists in the film. Director John McTiernan states on the DVD commentary that the change from a tale of political terrorism to a heist film was made because he wanted to bring "joy" to the story, rather than having the villains be overly ponderous.
by artfan » 05 Feb 2010 23:06
by artfan » 06 Feb 2010 00:35
by Bread » 06 Feb 2010 01:31
artfan wrote:Power-ups make these games more fun. (Perhaps the power-ups aren't fun its getting the power-ups that is fun?)
by artfan » 06 Feb 2010 02:19
by icycalm » 06 Feb 2010 15:25
JoshF wrote:Cheat code = less power.
JoshF wrote:Think about it. It's like taking all the weights off a barbell.
artfan wrote:Sometimes playing a game with cheat mode is less fun even though it's an example of more power.
artfan wrote:The possibility of increasing power isn't necessary for a game to be fun.
by icycalm » 06 Feb 2010 15:27
artfan wrote:Power without resistance and weak players being eliminated is not fun.
by icycalm » 06 Feb 2010 23:32
Nietzsche wrote:It is a question of strength (of an individual or of a people), whether and where the judgment "beautiful" is applied. The feeling of plenitude, of dammed-up strength (which permits one to meet with courage and good-humor much that makes the weakling shudder) -- the feeling of power applies the judgment "beautiful" even to things and conditions that the instinct of impotence could only find hateful and "ugly". The nose for what we could still barely deal with if it confronted us in the flesh -- as danger, problem, temptation -- this determines even our aesthetic Yes. ("That is beautiful" is an affirmation.)
From this it appears that, broadly speaking, a preference for questionable and terrifying things is a symptom of strength; while a taste for the pretty and dainty belongs to the weak and delicate. Pleasure in tragedy characterizes strong ages and natures: their non plus ultra is perhaps the divina commedia. It is the heroic spirits who say Yes to themselves in tragic cruelty: they are hard enough to experience suffering as a pleasure.
Supposing, on the other hand, that the weak desire to enjoy an art that is not meant for them; what would they do to make tragedy palatable for themselves? They would interpret their own value feelings into it; e.g., the "triumph of the moral world-order" or the doctrine of the "worthlessness of existence" or the invitation to "resignation" (-- or the half-medicinal, half-moral discharges of affects à la Aristotle). Finally: the art of the terrifying, in so far as it excites the nerves, can be esteemed by the weak and exhausted as a stimulus: that, for example, is the reason Wagnerian art is esteemed today. It is a sign of one's feeling of power and well-being how far one can acknowledge the terrifying and questionable character of things; and whether one needs some "solution" at the end.
This type of artists' pessimism is precisely the opposite of that religio-moral pessimism that suffers from the "corruption" of man and the riddle of existence -- and by all means craves a solution, or at least a hope for a solution. The suffering, desperate, self-mistrustful, in a word the sick, have at all times had need of entrancing visions to endure life (this is the origin of the concept "blessedness"). A related case: the artists of decadence, who fundamentally have a nihilistic attitude toward life, take refuge in the beauty of form -- in those select things in which nature has become perfect, in which she is indifferently great and beautiful -- (--"Love of beauty" can therefore be something other than the ability to see the beautiful, create the beautiful; it can be an expression of the very inability to do so.)
Those imposing artists who let a harmony sound forth from every conflict are those who bestow upon things their own power and self-redemption: they express their innermost experience in the symbolism of every work of art they produce -- their creativity is gratitude for their existence.
The profundity of the tragic artist lies in this, that his aesthetic instinct surveys the more remote consequences, that he does not halt shortsightedly at what is closest at hand, that he affirms the large-scale economy which justifies the terrifying, the evil, the questionable -- and more than merely justifies them.
by icycalm » 31 Dec 2011 03:18
Gerry Coulter wrote:As “a reversal and a symbolic challenge” death then, for Baudrillard, must be enjoyed because “reversibility is the only source of enjoyment”.55 The writings of a writer are his life after life, a nuance of life – a rendezvous with many who are not yet born.