Is a couch a chair? Is eating good or bad? Can gamers say the gamer word?
Mainstream philosophers piss people off because Wittgenstein was right. The topic is frivolous, but not in the way they think, it’s made frivolous by the weird ongoing attempts to “decide” questions that don’t work that way, defining answers and creating camps that argue back and forth forever, instead of seriously and collaboratively exploring the topic.
I have found this video incredibly frustrating. I wrote everything below the line while watching. I understand how this videol could appeal to people currently not already in the philosophical circlejerk, but I hated it so much.
You’re lacking a nice definition of “game” and “play”. I have no idea what you’re talking about when you use those words.
If I have a playful attitude when I brush my teeth, is it play? Can teeth-brushing be a game? In my experiments I’ve found that I brush my teeth better when I play it.
And what about spontaneous play? Children chasing each other around.
What about Wittgestein’s perception of language as play? Is language a game?
You have such a long portion talking about “What is art?” (A useless definition IMO) and absolutely none on “What is play?”‘.
The central theme of the video has almost no time in the video for itself.
And in the part of gameification. What is a non-game context? Can such a thing exist? Or is gameification the core feature of every game? Is gameification objective or subjective?
Can you work a game without playing it? Do it without experiencing it like a game?
You got so close to it in the utopia. In an utopic context everything can be a game, an if it can be a game then it can be a game now. So utopia is play all day every day. But can we play all day today? How? Can’t we live in utopia through experience?
I almost stopped watching. Chromosomes don’t determine testosterone. There are testosterone insensible XY-chromosomed people that have the fat distribution of usually low T people. Testosterone is the only indicator of testosterone. And if you care so much just measure it and get done with it. But honestly that should be up to the different athletic communities, so they can make their own rules, and play however they’d like.
The whole video feels kind of dumb to me. For example “The Olympics brings together nations”, but nations suck ass. They’re straight up horrible. So is gender.
You are a slave to abstractions. Free yourself from the burden of categorization, and just have fun playing tie your shoes in the morning.
Oh I hate you so bad. Why is the beggining of the video at the end?
Play can be scripted. For example in chess there are many scripts that are followed, and writing those scripts becomes part of chess. Openings. A meta-game of openings is played at the beggining of each high level match. And its choosing scripts.
I always view the philosophy of games best applied to their design since design philosophies can be logically explored in accordance to their virtue, vice, and effectiveness. This also is very (too) broad as there are big differences in competitive sports and video games, the latter of which are largely an entertainment medium. Art is beauty in the eye of the beholder. A piece of fruit can be art to someone if they want it to be. Why you like it or its perceived meaning to you is the philosophy. Also applying this to society and people means you need to illustrate understanding of the affected people and societies to accurately philosophize. Focus on one topic at a time for better output.
Most stuff in gaming is driven by data. Then as a philosopher you reflect on that data, like categorizing types art or art styles and seeing the correlation they have to sales in certain genres, age groups, or sexes, and try to thoroughly deduce meanings or reasons. If you are going to do, do it right, or there is no sense in doing it. Good luck.
James P. Cares wrote “Finite and Infinite Games” in 1986. The philosophy of games is not that new.
Is there any sort of textbook around this? Or literature that guides these discussions?