Philosophical essay on games

[Dane S]

Thought it might be interesting to get some responses to it here.

Why I Like Games - Dane Schneider

The reason I'm so interested in games is that I believe every aspect of life, including life itself, to be at its essence a game... so what else is there to be interested in, really? Remaining categories are subcategories.

An activity, or a series of actions, must include three basic components in order to qualify as a game:

1.) One or more rules (such as hit a small white ball into a small dark hole, punch some guy until he falls down for 10 seconds, kill people who live in a certain country until the survivors allow you to be in charge of that country, stay alive, reproduce, etc.).

2.) Must be fulfilling in some way (accomplished through a.) learning something or b.) fulfilling a desire, such as pleasure or social involvement or increased social standing).

3.) Experience within game is fundamentally unimportant when viewed from outside the realm of the game. Game acts are only important within game context. It is possible that the game will serve a teaching or status-based function which could be considered important, but the importance is ascribed in how the gained knowledge or status will be applied OUTSIDE of the game, relegating the game reality itself to a comparatively trivial classification.

Humanity has long been tormented by the monumental quest to discover validation and importance in our experience. Why do we demand these? Why seek the monumental? We are perfectly happy to play baseball or hopscotch or minesweeper though we know these activities lack any special importance--it doesn't lessen our enjoyment (perhaps it's even increased). Why not approach life similarly: we are here in some capacity, perceiving, with desires and a seeming ability to act, with no apparent external justification; why not discover ourselves to have been placed in the midst of Life, an all-encompassing game, and respond accordingly (by fulfilling desires, learning what can be learned, having a good time, whatever that means)?

Strangely enough, such a shift doesn't lessen or threaten life's meaning. Importance is an externally applied characteristic, while meaning is sought and discovered within. When we question our lives' importances, we seem to imagine a distant, ever-judging observer or a set of rigid standards that have very little to do with who we are as individuals and against which we must measure ourselves constantly. It's the authoritarian nod, the social thumbs up sign, or God as the great arbiter--and yet all are delusions. We think of them as existing independently, outside of our thoughts and perceptions, when they couldn't belong to the psyche more fully. We convince ourselves that they exist objectively, then suffer their various inquisitions in vain, when all that we truly desire is, in reality, extremely easily attained. What blocks our paths? Games. Hundreds and probably thousands or millions of games that do not realize they are games. They fancy themselves important. Our country fancies war or politics important. Civilization fancies progress important. Students fancy it important that they bury their souls in tedious schoolwork so that they might someday attain success, which is likewise fancied important because it's the crowning prize of this game that's been sold to us as something deeper and more fulfilling than a game can ever be (when a game is all that can ever be). So we get stuck and keep playing games even when we hate them, because we don't realize there are alternatives. If you don't like your game, then quit it and join or start a new one. Include some aspects of the old game that you do like if you want to--your game is infinitely customizable. The world won't end because you change--really, it will do the opposite and become wholly renewed.

So forget the big bad world or history or success or importance (unless you dig those kinds of games), or learn to view them as small fragments in a much larger and freer game that is your own. If you want deeper understanding then start stripping away the games you find yourself playing. Find a ground where you can ridicule each successive game as absurd, baseless, a waste of time...keep going until you find the bottom. It's not as scary there as is commonly believed, though it can be scary on the way. The great fear is that the end of the path of relativism, the bottom of all meaning is nothingness, pure absurdity, hell. But luckily for us this isn’t what’s there. At the bottom is the simplest and purest game of all. Played for kicks. Played because it's played, for a good time (one that's beneath and beyond all words, all conceptions of "good" or "game" or "time"). At the bottom is truth, if you want to call it that, the true nature of being. But it's not an answer--it's an endless rushing, an overwhelming of all senses, the essential ungraspable untranslatable primal force of beauty and substance. An existence that likes itself, because how else should it feel? It's playing the existence game (perhaps an endless procession of games?).

This is the significance I find in playing and thinking about games: they offer us a lesson. They beg us to identify vastly reaching parallels, connections, similarities. They want to help us make our lives good again, fantastic and adventurous and rich like they were always meant to be. Full and self-evidently good and self-evidently self-justifying. We find it in our games and then we forget it when the games end. But the model is there for us, and it works. Perhaps we need more and better games; I won't disagree. We need games that reach deeper and perhaps games that scream at us instead of whisper (while tugging us in bewildering directions). We need games that aren't deniable or easily dismissed. But even more so, we need players who are willing to take games seriously or, conversely, take their current conceptions of their lives less seriously. Because: serious, important, meaningful--these are mere words, as relative and ambiguous as any other facet of our lives (the language game, the communication game). The central point is that all games ought to be on equal footing. Whichever game we are involved in at this present moment derives a meaning that equates to all other meanings for all other games because it and all others are infinite. Sure, some games serve the purposes of other games. Games stack within each other, but the moment is not aware of such distinctions; the moment, which is the universe. Another way to put it is that each moment (all experience) is equally precious simply as a function of its presence. Since existence is good by its own volition, and since the moment contains all existence, that means the moment contains all goodness. Therefore, enjoy it! Find a game, play a game. Play any game. You don't have to call it "a game". Call it whatever you want. But play by your own rules, even if they are also someone else's rules, and have a good time even if it kills you to do so. Don't let importance ruin your fun. Get your friends to play with you. Get your friends' friends to play with you too. Everything else will work itself out nicely. Cause and effect, cause and effect: simple rules for a simple game.

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I'm so interested in games is that I believe every aspect of life, including life itself, to be at its essence a game...

[/ QUOTE ]

Locked up for a crime you didn't commit? Captured by a hostile government and tortured? Spouse and child raped and murdered by a serial killer? Starving? Don't fret! You've just suffered a setback in a "game," after all.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Locked up for a crime you didn't commit? Captured by a hostile government and tortured? Spouse and child raped and murdered by a serial killer? Starving? Don't fret! You've just suffered a setback in a "game," after all.

[/ QUOTE ]


These are all games in the sense that there are mutiple actors (players) all employing different strategies. The fact that you think all games should be fun and lighthearted is your own bias.

All animals partake in the game of life, under a secondary definition of the word: "A period of competition or challenge." There is a reason for the "survival of the fitest" (ugh, I hate using that term), and its that the fit are the best players of the game.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
All animals partake in the game of life, under a secondary definition of the word: "A period of competition or challenge." There is a reason for the "survival of the fitest" (ugh, I hate using that term), and its that the fit are the best players of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not necessarily true. It has become true to a large degree, but with technology it may become less true. Competition between agents isn't inherent in selection, only competition between genes.

[madnak]

By the way, I think this definition of "game" is way off. I've played plenty of games that weren't fulfilling. Also every game I've ever played has had a value outside the context of the game. So #2 and #3 simply don't hold up at all for me, in fact I don't think any games actually exist that fit condition #3. And I'm not just talking about social status or learning (unless you use an extremely broad sense of that word) gained within the context of the game, although they definitely apply.

Other than a clear set of rules, I think a goal is critical for a game. When each actor doesn't have a specific goal, it's not a game. Also there must be some competition, a conflict. All the players may be working together, but if so there must be some obstacle preventing them from reaching their common goal. Without any conflict, there's no game.

I think a game by its nature, then, is fundamentally brutal. In life I'd like to see everyone meet their needs as easily as possible, and see every actor's goals achieve a harmony such that no two individuals ever have a conflict of interest. Unrealistic perhaps, but in a game the value actually stems from one actor deliberately trying to sabotage another actor's goals! This is pathetic and certainly not how human beings must act.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Competition between agents isn't inherent in selection, only competition between genes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what I was referring to.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I think this definition of "game" is way off. I've played plenty of games that weren't fulfilling. Also every game I've ever played has had a value outside the context of the game. So #2 and #3 simply don't hold up at all for me, in fact I don't think any games actually exist that fit condition #3. And I'm not just talking about social status or learning (unless you use an extremely broad sense of that word) gained within the context of the game, although they definitely apply.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, but my point was that actions and results within the game are considered trivial compared to the effects it has on "real life". Example: money in poker isn't considered important within the context of the game--it's important because you can buy stuff with it in the real world (which is a more important place than the poker table). The game's reality is trivial compared to consensus reality. That clear it up at all?

[ QUOTE ]
Other than a clear set of rules, I think a goal is critical for a game. When each actor doesn't have a specific goal, it's not a game. Also there must be some competition, a conflict. All the players may be working together, but if so there must be some obstacle preventing them from reaching their common goal. Without any conflict, there's no game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there are lots of games without goals or a central conflict, most commonly made up and played by little kids. What is the obstacle to overcome when playing "house"?

[ QUOTE ]

I think a game by its nature, then, is fundamentally brutal. In life I'd like to see everyone meet their needs as easily as possible, and see every actor's goals achieve a harmony such that no two individuals ever have a conflict of interest. Unrealistic perhaps, but in a game the value actually stems from one actor deliberately trying to sabotage another actor's goals! This is pathetic and certainly not how human beings must act.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me your utopia is simply the outline of a game that doesn't involve any interpersonal conflict. Parallels can be found in online multiplayer video games that are "player versus environment". Everyone is striving for personal goals, but direct competition with other players isn't allowed.

[guesswest]

Excellent post Dane, and I haven't much to add to it, have long thought the same.

If and when I ever have kids I'll be admonishing them for not spending enough time playing computer games [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[JMAnon]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you think all games should be fun and lighthearted is your own bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, its the dictionary 's "bias":
Game: (1) An activity providing entertainment or amusement

[evolvedForm]

In philosophy a dictionary doesn't help much. If he's describing life as a game, which he is, then could attribute other game-like properties to it, and thereby change the definition of "game" to suit his purposes. Since he did not quite do this, he attributed all the characteristics of "game" to the term, "life." This in turn, in my opinion, severely hurt the essay, in that it will be very hard to convince somebody that life is lighthearted and fun.


Oh, and dictionaries do have biases.