The Gamer’s Dilemma: Most people accept virtual murder in video games, such as in GTA, because it’s a fictional form of violence. Yet, most people don’t accept darker forms of violence in games, such as sexual harassment. The challenge is to show the relevant difference between these two.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

I’m pretty sure Trevor sexually harassed every female character he came in contact with…


Doing good/evil in video game doesnt really matter.

In Hitman you in many cases killed targets – without clear justification that they are bad guys. They were target, that is enough.

In Dishonoured games you can avoid combat and morally – you should, as some of your enemies are 100% neutral, like butherhouse workers. But you can kill them as well.
I havent had any problem with that.

And in GTA you can run all the people or shoot the whole street and then 200 police officers – all innocent or good guys.

But then there is Prey, where killing “mind controled” humans made me felt bad.


My theory is that there are two factors.

**1. ability to realistically imagine oneself in this situation.
This is applicable mostly for sexual violence.**

We all have sexual experiences, and our sexual imagination is intimate, “real” in terms of our state of mind.
I know what is feels to hold another person, to take my or partner clothes off. Even before any intercourse you know what it feels to be aroused, and so on.
So replaying sexual violence in videogame feels very real and intimate. And feels bad.
Same is with real life actors on stage – they are often traumatized by acting sexual violence scenes.

With actual violence… Most 😀 of us dont have any real experience of turning enemy into pulp with fist, or splitting a head with axe, or shooting 5500 terrorists in the head with Desert Eagle…

So this type of violence will never be REAL.

**2. Gamification of violence.**

If violence is essential part of game, it become ABSTRACT.
Shooting policemen in GTA is not an act of rebelling against society, it is just a step necessary to end mission. You need to loose tail to remove “being chased” stars.
Realistically looking killings in DOOM Ethernal 2020 are **AS ABSTRACT** as killings in DOOM 1993

But THERE WAS A CHANGE. I felt it.
In GTA II I was running people over for “elvis has left the building”. In GTA:SA I beat hookers to get my money back…

But in GTA IV…
I avoided running people over when leisure driving outside of mission. They acted **too real**, and driving a car and listening to a music is a something I experienced and I can realistically imagine hitting pedestrian with a car.
Therefore running them over felt bad.

But just add a countdown timer above my head, or 3stars of being chased and all those pedestrians ARE GOING DOWN.
As now this is all abstract and unrealistic.


Isn’t the difference here relatively simple? There’s a fine line between “killing” and “murder” that has to do with intent and context. Historically speaking, killing can make you a villain, but it can also make you a hero. Which means, under the right conditions—say, defending your tribe from an enemy—killing is not only tolerated; it’s highly rewarded by the community. Therefore, we can easily imagine “bad reasons” *and* “good reasons” to kill, and the word “murder” simply describes our shared notion of “bad reasons.”

Sexual violence, on the other hand, doesn’t come with the same potential for community reward. It has been tolerated in certain places in times of war, but never *lauded* (to my knowledge). Whereas killing can be considered a “good” at times, or at least necessary (or even a necessary “evil”), sexual violence is something unnecessary, over-the-top, or extra by contrast—particularly *immoderate*, or “vicious.” It’s therefore very difficult to imagine “good reasons” for it; it’s extreme even in extreme circumstances.

So, it’s not to say that either murder or sexual violence is “better” or “worse,” or “more right” or “more wrong,” than the other; but it’s easy to see why one *offends our taste* more. This offense typically applies even to video games, art, and other media where the *morality* of violence doesn’t exactly apply but the *aesthetics* of violence do.

Many people intuitively fear the “propagandistic” effects of art on their sense of taste. Even if it won’t change their belief that sexual violence is immoral, they’re concerned that they’ll develop a taste for something they think of as wrong… or at least that it will dull their sense of appropriate disgust. And it’s interesting because many people try to argue that video game violence is “wrong,” which is difficult, but they don’t argue that it’s “in poor taste” because taste is even harder to argue for.


Seems simple to me: the narrative of many of these games presents some characters as “bad guys” or good vs. evil. Therefore killing is justifiable so long as you’re protecting yourself or someone else, or doing service to society. Committing sexual assault on the other hand is not justifiable as a means of self preservation, the subject is not usually an enemy per se.


Sexual harassment darker than murder?


The living Mahabharata | Immorality, sexism, politics, war: the polychromatic Indian epic pulses with relevance to the present day

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Do not read anything written by Audrey Truschke. She’s well known in India to be unscrupulous in her interpretation of Indian scriptures with no valid connection to how Indians interpret it, or to actual accuracy of translations etc. There are *far* more intellectually honest indologists than her.


There’s a lot of hot takes in this article.

The Mahabharata has never been used as moral tale, and nor should it. As mentioned in the article basically every moral position is reneged and taken up again.

>Sometimes even the gods act objectionably in the Mahabharata. Krishna, an incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu, endorses dishonesty on more than one occasion. Even when Krishna advocates what the epic dubs dharma, the results can be hard to stomach. For example, when Arjuna, the third Pandava brother and their best warrior, hesitates to fight against his family and kill so many people, Krishna gives an eloquent speech that convinces him to plunge into battle.

I think that the purpose of Krishna needs a bit of background here, and I’ll provide my own theory. In terms of avatars of Vishnu Rama was already the perfect human being, and by looking at the progression of the avatars we can think of Krishna as superhuman. During the war especially he does some dubious things, but he’s working from a deeper understanding of Rta than everyone else. In my mind it’s similar to the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta where once enlightened a person has no need for moral instruction since they are already in the slipstream of Rta.

>Karna’s mother is Kunti, mother of the five Pandava brothers, but Karna is not counted among the five. The story goes that, when Kunti was a girl, a sage gave her a boon that she could call any god at any time to impregnate her. Still unmarried, one night she calls Surya, the Sun god. Surya’s brilliance scares Kunti, and she asks him to leave, but he insists on seeing the matter through. And so, compelled by a male god who said she asked for it, Kunti conceives Karna.

The last sentence is a bit dodgy to my mind. Even though the Mahabharata is set during the decline of society and the “good old days” are long past, there are still vows and boons to be upheld. Especially if a Deva shows up and doesn’t do what he’s sworn to do. This is a world of guest-right, oaths (Varuna), treaties and friendship (Mitra), customs (Aryaman) etc.


Dialogue on the Questions of Being, through an Analogy with Chess

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Thanks for the read. I was just looking up Husserl as a result of my rabbit hole late search. Then Husserl lead me to Franz Brentano with his theory of perception and judgements. Now this…


I’m somewhat lost at the jump from encryption. Isn’t what they’re describing essentially the core of a one-time pad? That a one-time pad is essentially uncrackable because any data can be interpreted from it, owing to its nature?

The way I see it, they’re going from a _specific_ game (using descriptive notation, PK4…) to a _general_ game by scrambling it into random data. Since there is no way to discern the contents without the encryption key, the original game has also been lost.

IOW, the jump from “No Meaning” => “Meaning” as presented in the article isn’t a huge jump, as the paralogism in

> There has to be some paralogism in this chain of reasoning, or some illusion at hold.

is already part of the encryption scheme above.

Basically: if you have a key, then you can generate the “intended” meaning from a given set of random data. If you don’t, then you can generate _anything_ from it. But the “meaning” derived from “no meaning” is based on the _intent_ of the original sender, not the patterns that can be extracted from a given string.

I’m new to all this so I might be missing something, but I don’t see any logical inconsistency here unlike that presented in the article.


Certainly an interesting and intriguing read, but I always found these to be rather pedantic. You wouldn’t take a plate of spaghetti, put it through a blender, and still claim that it’s spaghetti in a different presentation. It’s a slosh, it’s blended spaghetti, it’s anything BUT spaghetti in its original form. I know this is supposed to spark the debate of “where does the meaning of something reside” since the words/symbols themselves do not contain that, but to me it’s still a huge extrapolation to make this perspective work.


That was very interesting, thanks!


What an interesting dialogue!


Decoupling as a Moral Decision

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Not quite touched on in the article is how often people don’t go back to revisit the assumptions. “Let’s assume A. Therefore B, therefore C. So, C”. And they just move on to the next thing and want to do it all again. So they get to spend all of their time making pretty logical conclusions. If one of their claims is unfounded, just call that “an assumption for the sake of argument” and keep going! They never ever go back and say “and if not A, then my whole argument is totally invalid. Therefore [opposite of initial position].” (Ben Shapiro comes to mind…)

Maybe a good strategy for this game is if someone offers you a hypothetical, only agree if they’re willing to consider the other hypothetical first.

I was waiting to hear back on a job offer. I was very stressed about it, partly because I couldn’t decide what to do in the mean time. It would be two totally different lives (I’d move countries for the job). I made sense of it by decoupling. I sat down with my girlfriend and a piece of paper and said let’s spend 15 minutes talking about if I get it, then flip the paper and 15 minutes on if I don’t get it. This story went on way too long but my point is if she had wanted to do it in the other order, I would have totally been fine with that. I also said up front I wanted to talk about both sides, another positive signal.

Do you think the hypothetical cab driver would have done that? “Sure I’ll consider this hypothetical about minority drivers being worse. But only if we talk about the hypothetical of the majority being worse drivers first. What do you think should happen then?”


interesting article… wish Id thought harder before I failed the answer to the decoupling example question… it was quite obvious with even moderate consideration.


Perhaps there is a different additional consideration- is the discussion a purely theoretical one, or is it a policy-making one?

Decoupling a purely abstract thought experiment is fairly lightweight in itself, but if the outcome is to determine policy we become much more concerned with consequences than reasoning.

“If someone is the weakest rower, they should be flung from the lifeboat to drown” is a different matter if discussed on land or on a sinking ship.


IMO decoupling isn’t a trait but an intellectual skill that anyone can learn. And yes, before applying a skill to a particular case, you decide if you want to.

I find the article a little confusing with its choices.


Oof, Sam Harris. There’s a name I’ve not heard since I grew out of my edgy atheist phase.


Reality is just a quantum wave function | High-dimension metaphysics offer a realist interpretation of quantum mechanics, and the end of spooky action at a distance.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Non-physicists at r/philosophy try not to talk about high level physics they don’t understand challenge (impossible)


With such assertions, are we not in danger of mistaking the map for the terrain? I don’t understand all the details of what a quantum wave function is, but I’m given to understand that it is some sophisticated mathematics useful in making predictions about empirical phenomena. You could possibly stretch this further to argue that it is closely approximating or describing some feature(s) of reality, but even then it remains an abstraction, not what is being described or abstracted from. Whenever I hear someone assert that all of reality *is* some neat bit of mathematics, I get more than a little skeptical.


Bells theorem only disproves local hidden variable theories. There is a pretty long jump from that to assuming string theory is a discriptive or at least useful theory.

Si far adding dimensions havent actually solved anything. Other than maybe blackhole entropy.


>spooky action at a distance.

I swear Im hearing this phrase for hundredth time already…


I mean… **”just**”?


For Different Trolley Problems our Moral Intuitions May Align with Act-Consequentialism.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

I disagree with the conclusion.

The lower acceptance of “push fat guy off the bridge” is NOT because we are against breaking two rules.
– murder rule
– use of personal force against innocent.

I believe the main reason is that lever or a switch offers us a distancing agent. The death of the person is not entirely OUR ACT. It is an effect of work of some contraption. We just pull a lever.

With pushing, there is no distancing.
Same as bombing enemy and killing them with swords and axes.

And second reason is “conscious realistic imagination”(my idea).
We KNOW that there AREN’T any flaps and levers in bridges, that would allow us to drop people on the track. So this scenario is PURE fantasy
But we KNOW how to pick up or push a person. We know that is is possible for person to be pushed or fall of a bridge. So this scenario is grounded in our experience/ realistic imagination

This is why trolley problem is more interesting when turned into “you drive a car, choose who to run over”. This is way more to imagine that lever that switches tracks, and this why results tells us more.


While I like the trolley conundrum, I find the supermarket trolley “test” to be a better indicator of what kind of person you’re dealing with…


The Trolley Problem arises from a set of moral dilemmas, most of which involve tradeoffs between causing one death and preventing several more. In the video, we describe some variants of the trolley problem (in particular, the one where a person is pushed on the train tracks) and argue that our moral intuitions may match a simple act Consequentialist theory that takes into account the second-order effects of actions with respect to societal rules.
Although the cases analyzed have the same consequences in terms of human deaths, they have different consequences in their interaction with societal rules that, in any realistic scenario, a Consequentialist should consider in his moral calculus.


If one person can stop the trolley from the foot bridge why isn’t there an option to jump in front of the trolley? 1 life for 4/5 depending on scenario.


When someone brings up the Trolley Problem, I like to choose to switch the rail after the front wheels have passed, but the rear wheels have not. I then ask them what happens next. Some say the trolley will get stuck or immediately derail, while others say it will kill everyone strapped to both sides. Regardless their answer, it leads to how dichotomies are almost always constructs.


There Is No You – Impermanence and the Non-Self in Buddhism

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

The goal is not to reach this state then maintain this state permanently. The goal is to achieve this state, know your higher self, return to a balanced state where you can operate through the ego for good in the world but also stay detached enough to not be affected by suffering. It’s easy for billionaires to fuck off and ignore the larger world but the rest of us must find a way to exist with it – not outside of it. Too many people believe the objective is to disappear from the human experience when it is the experience that is the point.


There are certain things in life that are static and that can change. In following traditional Buddhist values, the Three Marks of Existence are three static points in life that can be summed up by one word: change. The Three Marks of Existence are believed to be Impermanence, Suffering, and the Non-self; and understanding these Marks will point you in the direction of the Eightfold Path’s first statement, the Right Understanding, which is the first step toward the cessation of suffering.

From Chuck Palahniuk’s 1996 work, Fight Club: “You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile.” (p. 134)

There are many philosophies within the book and movie, Fight Club, that are led by a man named Tyler Durden. And all of which have inspired my own philosophical journey, as I gravely do not want people to feel the way Tyler Durden makes them feel: non-unique. I believe Tyler was created as an exaggerated zeitgeist of the overworked “middle children of history”. Overall, he and I work toward the same goal: to overthrow the feeling of existential void founded by the American Dream of Capitalism.

As we are “decaying organic matter,” and as we inch toward the great “compost pile” that is death, we cannot forget one important thing: we are unique – we are unique every day, from every passing thought, with every physiological movement, every blink, we are a new version of ourselves. Just as a snowflake falls from the clouds and reaches toward the ground, it creates its shape; it is not born fully formed with its armed and legs decided and static. And the sooner we realize the same is true for ourselves, the sooner we will be able to detach ourselves from our expectations of the future and of ourselves, to move through life as it is, without suffering.

Nothing is permanent. We are changeable human beings. And so, if we look into our abyss, our existential void, and find suffering, it is because we are not looking at it as if it were a boundless, endless ocean of possibilities, whose only limit is time itself.


For whom then is the message intended?


Audio is too low. Couldn’t watch it


Tat tvam asi


The Inner Dimensions of Nature – Discovering the existence of the supernatural

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Just a bunch of redefining stuff we already know exists. I swear, some people are just determined to believe in god.


I think supernatural is just another word for “We cant explain it yet so we just assumed stuff”


Did anyone else get a little irritated by the spelling mistakes?

“Our thoughts, desires, feelings are the inner dimensions of out physical body, they animate the body and cause its movement”

Grammatical issues aside, this to me read very much like Hegel’s definition of consciousness and self-consciousness. Which also had a large amount of Spinoza influence. I think Hegel would argue his definition of “force” caused movement. Though the aspect of self-consciousness being desire resonated to me throughout this article by replacing “God” with his definition of “Spirit”

I always get leery when when philosophy tends to “look inward” and theorize while ignoring the use of the terms. That this inward pointing can legitimize an object of knowledge with a theory. I suppose that is why I gravitas more towards the analytical tradition.


I’ll save you the trouble of reading it. Space and time exist, so God. Why? Because according to science nature is external, but according to spirituality nature is internal. What does this mean? Whatever you want to mean.


AI doesn’t count in this aspect.


The tyranny of work: jobs have become, for so many, a relentless, unsatisfying toil. Now is the time to challenge the traditional work ethic.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

‘There are some guys that think the amount of hours they work is a measure of who they are,’ one digger said, ‘but what really matters is everything we do outside our jobs to strengthen our community – that’s the real work.’ He was defining ‘real work’ as something explicitly beyond the value of the market, something good in and of itself. If we want ‘the real work’ to become a priority, we’ll need to transform our society’s dependence on low-wage/long-hour jobs, and free up time for people to lead a meaningful life outside of their daily grind. That can happen only through a renewed public debate about labour time such as what occurred in the late-19th century until the 1940s. The spectre of life without work has fuelled many utopian schemes for centuries. But there’s also a pragmatic rationale – we simply don’t need to work as much to produce what we need and want as we once did. Long hours serve a political and cultural agenda as much as they do an economic imperative. Transcending a long-hours economy will, in the process, transform our ideological commitments to work, offering different lessons about ‘time well spent’.

This part was what struck me. We’re living in modern times being governed by systems reliant on archaic trends. These design patterns need to change and that won’t happen as long as traditionalists are in power.


*”Nothing had changed. Their lives had been expended in the cheerless labor, their wills broken, their intelligences numbed. Now they were in the earth to which they had given their lives; and slowly, year by year, the earth would take them. Slowly the damp and rot would infest the pine boxes which held their bodies, and slowly it would touch their flesh and finally it would consume the last vestiges of their substances. And they would become a meaningless part of that stubborn earth to which they had long ago given themselves.”*

-*Stoner* John Williams


I’m in my late 30s and just recently ground to a halt with my job. I’m not unwell or anything, just sick of the hamster wheel and not much to show for it. I’m ashamed to say it, but COVID was kind of a welcome change – that can’t be right can it?


I honestly don’t mind working. It’s the being harassed and treated like dogs shit that I can’t stand. Wages too but Jeeesus Christttt they torment us for no reason.


“jobs have become…”

I mean was it at any time in history up to this point any different? I wonder where these people get their expectations…


How to be useless: Follow the Daoist way – reclaim your life and happiness by letting go of the need to produce, strive or serve a purpose.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Taoism may be about letting go of the “need” to serve or produce, but it is also not about not producing.


Daoism is simply about not fighting reality. To flow through life without holding on to judgements, preconceived notions, societal conditioning, your past, your potential future, etc. That’s it. It has nothing to do with productivity. It has everything to do with what the unconscious PERCEIVE as being productive, striving, and serving.


I’m a Daoist and a Stoic, I don’t do shit, and I don’t care, either.


I am loving this new r/antiwork movement. It’s what I’ve been saying for years – nobody _needs_ to do anything. We deserve food, health and happiness from the moment we are born. Not to be given to us – but to have the right to create it for ourselves and others, on our own terms.


I think Taoism offers a better description of reality than a prescriptive way of being.