What is your philosophy?

Conchabar

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,732
As i was sitting down trawling through plato/socrates, i began wondering about what other gamers philosophy was.. so here we are what is ure philosophy on life/games?

hehe way i see it by all means play games, but if u find u dont have a social life afterwards, u will become a philosopher:p
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
DAOC is a game you play and all you do is alter '0's and '1'1s on a hard drive.

LIFE is a game you play and all you do is move atoms around.

Just as DAOC wouldn't be worth playing if everyone got an an insta 50 and had an insta 10,000hp dmg spell, LIFE also won't be worth playing when eventually our technology eliminates every annoying 'RULE'.
 

Ezteq

Queen of OT
Joined
Jan 4, 2004
Messages
13,457
just when you think everythings going well you get gang probed by a red con, you make 3 bubs xp and lose 5, you get in the best group ever and then your pc crashes but its all made worth while if youve got someone who you can laugh about it with.
 

Earl

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
593
Occams Razor - Cut the crap get to the facts. (Translated in Ye Old English)
 

Darksword

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
2,678
i really dont have any gamer philosophy.

i dunno if this is philosophy but i know the meaning of life, to love. :)
 

Ame

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
685
Whomever created the world, and entire universe, either being a God, a huge force, a spirit or just a series of coincidences, impossibilities and freak changes in probability... needs one hefty slap.
 

Ame

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
685
Job said:
DAOC is a game you play and all you do is alter '0's and '1'1s on a hard drive.

LIFE is a game you play and all you do is move atoms around.

Just as DAOC wouldn't be worth playing if everyone got an an insta 50 and had an insta 10,000hp dmg spell, LIFE also won't be worth playing when eventually our technology eliminates every annoying 'RULE'.
How about:

You can either win or loose in a game, but you can only loose in life.
 

Darksword

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
2,678
Ame said:
How about:

You can either win or loose in a game, but you can only loose in life.

its spelt lose :)

and wtfs with all the negativity towards life? sure our lives are probably insignificant and we're not going to make the sort of impact we'd imagine and in 100 years no one will care for eithar one of us. BUT life is absolutly amazing, there isnt anything more amazing. the worlds mint, the huge mountans, the massive seas, the beautiful forests, down to the babbling brooks, and the sound of laughter. life fucking rocks, the world rocks. i just wish everyone could see that and everyone could have a nice happy life.
 

Ezteq

Queen of OT
Joined
Jan 4, 2004
Messages
13,457
Darksword said:
and wtfs with all the negativity towards life? sure our lives are probably insignificant and we're not going to make the sort of impact we'd imagine and in 100 years no one will care for eithar one of us. BUT life is absolutly amazing, there isnt anything more amazing. the worlds mint, the huge mountans, the massive seas, the beautiful forests, down to the babbling brooks, and the sound of laughter. life fucking rocks, the world rocks. i just wish everyone could see that and everyone could have a nice happy life.


w00t!! someone that is actually unashamed to admit that the world isnt a dark disgusting place, dye their hair black paint their nails black, listen to a peter paul and mary song backwards then take a bath with the toaster? cor and i thought i was the only one!

as cool as it might be to harp on about depression and the blackness, it really isnt fun.
waking to a new day with a sky looking like the most beautiful painting in the world, feeling hope and possibilities so you go walking in the forest with the sunlight on your face, the flowers all opening to the new day and a herd of wild deer running past you so close you can smell them, thats fun,

trying to run from the bus to your front door in torrential rain and giggling like a child when you reach the front door with thoughts of warm towels and hot chocolate, thats fun,

taisting a snowflake then having a whopping snowball fight and making a 7inch snowman, thats fun.

theres so much beauty in the world and all folks seem to concentrate on is the negative, yeah so we all have bad stuff, some have a lot of bad stuff but with all the bad stuff ive had the one constant thing of joy and beauty to me is the bits other people are too busy to see.

laugh and joke about the world going to hell in a handbasket but dont take it seriously and as much crap as you have to take in your life just think what i think "what doesnt kill you makes you stronger" or failing that "fuck the fucking fuckers" eithers good, just dont lose your joy folks.
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
In general attitude, I'm probably best descibed as an epicurist (not a hedonist, mind you). Don't expect anything from life and you won't be disappointed.

My ethical view is based upon the old liberal saying: "your freedom ends where my freedom begins". This is deduced from the very basic epistemology that we cannot know what's true and what's false. This means that every belief is worth as much as the next, however this will be adjusted later on. While in theory every belief is worth as much as the next, this also includes that you shouldn't limit another human in expressing that belief. This means, that starting from the premise that there is no absolute good or bad, one can still come to a (albeit quite basic) moral.

i am still unsure as where to place animals into this whole idea. So far I came up with the following, any help is appreciated.
- It is a distinctive human ability to take a distance from the facts. Maybe not so much on a subject-object level, since there are animals using basic instruments as well (*), but moreso on an emotional level.
- Animals can be depressed/happy/whatever, but this is always directly related to their environment. Therefore I would not really consider their emotions real emotions, but rather physical reactions.
- Ending an animal life would thus be ending physical processes. If you do not make the animal suffer in the process. Animals do also neither have an idea on what's good and bad, thus imposing your view upon them is not morally wrong.
As I said though, this doesn't feel like a strong argument, so any constructive input is appreciated :).



(*) Although, off course, humans can take much greater a distance on an instrumental level than animals.
 

Ezteq

Queen of OT
Joined
Jan 4, 2004
Messages
13,457
hmm interesting one there, tbh i just think of people as animals but i'll have to seperate them for a moment to say this, humans arn't better than animals we're just different, just because we can use a washing machine does not make us any better imo (and this is just my opionion).


and in nature i dont believe there is any good and bad (putting humans well and truely aside for now) it just is, in some nature documentaries they sometimes try to (err big word inc, possible spelling mistake too) anthropomorphasize the animals in a situation by making the hunter the bad evil being and the prey the sweet innocent victim, adding dramatic music etc, but its wrong in both cases they're just doing what they do.
 

Ame

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
685
Darksword said:
its spelt lose :)

and wtfs with all the negativity towards life? sure our lives are probably insignificant and we're not going to make the sort of impact we'd imagine and in 100 years no one will care for eithar one of us. BUT life is absolutly amazing, there isnt anything more amazing. the worlds mint, the huge mountans, the massive seas, the beautiful forests, down to the babbling brooks, and the sound of laughter. life fucking rocks, the world rocks. i just wish everyone could see that and everyone could have a nice happy life.
The fact that life ends kinda makes me a tad depressed. And even then, whatever we achieved is going to be destroyed unless we move to another plannet. Even then, the universe will most likely collapse on itself, and whatever we have achieved is going to be destroyed. Just makes me think, why bother?
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
Maybe I should word it a bit diferent. I am not unsure about the 'moral' attitude of animals, I'm fairly sure they have none. Animals just do what they do, without considering the effects. They can't take distance and consider the effects of their act and the other possibilities they have. What I'm trying to find is a guideline for human behaviour towards animals.

I have already decided that torturing animals is wrong, because when it comes to feeling pain animals are just as susceptible to it as humans. Even though they may not have themselves an opinion about torture, it isn't enjoyable and thus you shouldn't do it. What I'm still having trouble with is taking a moral stance on killing animals for food and/or clothes. This is the actual subject of the reasoning above.


P.S. It's anthropomorphize (or anthropomorphise) :)
 

Darksword

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
2,678
noblok said:
In general attitude, I'm probably best descibed as an epicurist (not a hedonist, mind you). Don't expect anything from life and you won't be disappointed.

My ethical view is based upon the old liberal saying: "your freedom ends where my freedom begins". This is deduced from the very basic epistemology that we cannot know what's true and what's false. This means that every belief is worth as much as the next, however this will be adjusted later on. While in theory every belief is worth as much as the next, this also includes that you shouldn't limit another human in expressing that belief. This means, that starting from the premise that there is no absolute good or bad, one can still come to a (albeit quite basic) moral.

i am still unsure as where to place animals into this whole idea. So far I came up with the following, any help is appreciated.
- It is a distinctive human ability to take a distance from the facts. Maybe not so much on a subject-object level, since there are animals using basic instruments as well (*), but moreso on an emotional level.
- Animals can be depressed/happy/whatever, but this is always directly related to their environment. Therefore I would not really consider their emotions real emotions, but rather physical reactions.
- Ending an animal life would thus be ending physical processes. If you do not make the animal suffer in the process. Animals do also neither have an idea on what's good and bad, thus imposing your view upon them is not morally wrong.
As I said though, this doesn't feel like a strong argument, so any constructive input is appreciated :).



(*) Although, off course, humans can take much greater a distance on an instrumental level than animals.

hmm, well would depend on what you mean by environment, environment as in there surroundings as in the weather etc? because im fairly sure animals do have "real emotions" - for example many are protective over there children, lion cubs stay with there mother, there mother feeds and protects them and teachs themt o hunt, attack her child and she is protective, surely this is a reaction based on a emotional bond. Further evidence would be humans interaction with the animal world and bonds being formed, pets are loyal to there masters, pigeons now like humans because we feed them. Also consider the fact that alot of animal societys are based on alpha male roles, such as the urangutangs (sp) who clearly define there roles by cheek pouch size and strength, regularly fighting and dieing for a higher role and more power - surely this is also based on emotion, to want to be better. surely all emotion is based on environment, including human, you are happier when with someone you like, you may feel a certain way when your are comfortable, you may feel anger when your in a co

also, surely all process is physical, the "spiritual" is what is jsut granted "higher purpose" by the individual, often defined by society, thus spiritual is a social construction. emotion is based on brain chemicals and electron impulses or something - chocolate makes women happier, beer makes me more open and dance etc etc, but also when we are excited our heart rate increases, just for example - surely this must be counted as physical process.

and to what ezteq said, man is an animal, surely - whats the difference between man and bacteria? bacteria does the same thing man does - it lives, to live - breading at insane rates because they die out so quickly it simply tries to maintain life and "explore".

oh and better than tasting the snowflakes is when your really nice and warm, but can still feel the chilling breeze that blows on your skin and makes you feel just perfect :D
 

DocWolfe

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
2,855
My personal philosphy is;

Do what you want, not what someone else wants. Think for yourself, rather than someone thinking for you. Speak for yourself, rather than letting other people speak for you. Look for yourself, and see what a wonderful world we live in.

Life aint shit, unless you make it shit by doing the opposite of the above.
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
Darksword said:
<snipped>

and to what ezteq said, man is an animal, surely - whats the difference between man and bacteria? bacteria does the same thing man does - it lives, to live - breading at insane rates because they die out so quickly it simply tries to maintain life and "explore".

<snipped>
I don't agree on that one: the distinctive feature of man is that he can take a distance. Animals are 'stuck' to their environment, they don't consider the effects of what they do and all the other possible actions they can take.

This is maybe a bit abstract and I'll try to elaborate. Animals act on instincts, they don't evaluate their actions and certainly don't consider the other possibilities they have. Humans can do this. Humans can act, take a distance afterwards and see if the action resulted in the effects they hoped and if not hey can choose to modify the way they acted or just try a whole new approach. This is what allows humans to do things like long term planning, this is why humans care about the environment. Well, some do, but everyobody is conscient of what they're doing to the environment.

You can say that monkey use basic instruments like twigs to poke into ant forts and the like and I certainly won't deny that. This still is a basic level of interaction though. A monkey can see an apple hangin in a tree, if there's a twig laying there he may hit the apple with the twig in the hope of it falling off. The monkey will not think "Hey, I remember that a few days ago I saw a twig which would be perfect to hit that apple with". If there is no twig in the direct environment, the monkey will not use it. Humans can go and fetch the twig they saw a few days ago and they can do even more. They can assemble a lot of branches and make a ladder, a completely abstract construction.

This ability to play with possibilites also means that humans have responsibility: they can choose, but must also bear the results of the choice they made. Animals don't have the option to choose and thus can't be held responsible for their actions, I'm sure most people will agree on this.

On the snipped part: you are right, they have some very basic emotions, but always in direct interaction with their environment. A mother animal will love her cubs, but you'll never find a lion being depressed because she can't get children. They feel the love when there are animals to be loved in the direct environment, humans can feel love for something which doesn't exist. This also mean that they can emotionally 'lack' something.

Pets being loyal to their masters is, as you said, because they get free food. "That guy gives me food, i'll stay with him." Again, direct interaction. Pet holders often describe emotions to their pets which the pets don't have. I know, i've been guilty of it myself, sometimes it can be hard not to interpret those cute eyes as sad. This is just anthropomorphosis in most of the cases though.

Animals listen to the alpha male because otherwise they'll get beaten to a bloody pulp. If the alpha male is no longer strong enough himself, he'll get beaten and his reign ends. He is not chosen because of leader qualities or inspiring speeches(*). Simple fist talk is what it's about. This is again, a very basic level of direct interaction.

(*) The fact that humans can be inspired by speeches also shows their ability to take distance. Animal communication is about warnings and where to find food, they don't attach any emotional value to words.They don't even have words for emotions.

Edit: apologies for typing mistakes, but it's late and the post was too long to reread it more than once :)
 

Darksword

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
2,678
noblok said:
1) I don't agree on that one: the distinctive feature of man is that he can take a distance. Animals are 'stuck' to their environment, they don't consider the effects of what they do and all the other possible actions they can take.

2 )This is maybe a bit abstract and I'll try to elaborate. Animals act on instincts, they don't evaluate their actions and certainly don't consider the other possibilities they have. Humans can do this. Humans can act, take a distance afterwards and see if the action resulted in the effects they hoped and if not hey can choose to modify the way they acted or just try a whole new approach. This is what allows humans to do things like long term planning, this is why humans care about the environment. Well, some do, but everyobody is conscient of what they're doing to the environment.

You can say that monkey use basic instruments like twigs to poke into ant forts and the like and I certainly won't deny that. This still is a basic level of interaction though. A monkey can see an apple hangin in a tree, if there's a twig laying there he may hit the apple with the twig in the hope of it falling off. The monkey will not think "Hey, I remember that a few days ago I saw a twig which would be perfect to hit that apple with". If there is no twig in the direct environment, the monkey will not use it. Humans can go and fetch the twig they saw a few days ago and they can do even more. They can assemble a lot of branches and make a ladder, a completely abstract construction.

This ability to play with possibilites also means that humans have responsibility: they can choose, but must also bear the results of the choice they made. Animals don't have the option to choose and thus can't be held responsible for their actions, I'm sure most people will agree on this.

5) On the snipped part: you are right, they have some very basic emotions, but always in direct interaction with their environment. A mother animal will love her cubs, but you'll never find a lion being depressed because she can't get children. They feel the love when there are animals to be loved in the direct environment, humans can feel love for something which doesn't exist. This also mean that they can emotionally 'lack' something.

3) Pets being loyal to their masters is, as you said, because they get free food. "That guy gives me food, i'll stay with him." Again, direct interaction. Pet holders often describe emotions to their pets which the pets don't have. I know, i've been guilty of it myself, sometimes it can be hard not to interpret those cute eyes as sad. This is just anthropomorphosis in most of the cases though.

4) Animals listen to the alpha male because otherwise they'll get beaten to a bloody pulp. If the alpha male is no longer strong enough himself, he'll get beaten and his reign ends. He is not chosen because of leader qualities or inspiring speeches(*). Simple fist talk is what it's about. This is again, a very basic level of direct interaction.

(*) The fact that humans can be inspired by speeches also shows their ability to take distance. Animal communication is about warnings and where to find food, they don't attach any emotional value to words.They don't even have words for emotions.

Edit: apologies for typing mistakes, but it's late and the post was too long to reread it more than once :)

kk im going to disect parts because youve made quiet a few points so cant tackle it all as one haha. numbers ^^ corresponed with the ones below.

1) man does not always take an emotional distance - ill take a situation to show as an example but this will apply to amny situations, this may be a bit extreme but it happens constantly so. We all know waht is happening in Africa is wrong, but we dont do anything about it, we dont look at it from a distance, we simply realise we are benefiting from it so we dont do anything about it, greed. we are in no way emotionally distanced from it, we simply care too much about ourselves to want to help to better them.

2) Not all animals work on instinct, and they do think of other possibilities. Ill take the master/pet example again - when a master hits his pet, the pet could bite the master or he could "learn" from it and become subserviant, they do know that there are alternatives and more than one path and they do decide. i kind of need to link this to another point to clarify and amke more sense

3) surely this is the exact same as humans. it isnt free food, they are the pet they have a roll and for fulfilling it htey are rewarded. this kinda merges with point 4 aswell.

4) in humans we do the same - we work for the big company otherwise we die. we do as we are told otherwise we dont get money so we dont get food so we die (ofcourse now in alot of western societys htis has moved on from food to material possessions so i guess we lose reputation or something). when the big company fucks up someone replaces it. as humans we have just put safeguards in, the alpha male role is no longer defined by strength but by money. some would say more primative men still define it by strength etc such as fighters having alot of reputation etc. on the speechs etc, id have to again disagree - using the animal kingdoms again as proof - urangutangs assert there authority by there deep wails, lions by there roar and sea lions by there gayness. would winston churchills speech been as enspiring in a womans voice? probably not (oh and apparantly he didnt even read the speech over the radio was someone else so), or hitlers speechs without his passion/anger?

they do more than danger and food aswell, it can be initiation or passion, when a small child dies a mother cries, when a small monkey dies his tribe or whatever morn and the jungle is filled with the sound of there shouting and crying.

5) surely all emotion is basic, and that is why it is so powerful. the only way i can try and describe how im seeing this now is by using a pyramid/triangle. consider that emotion is quiet low down and rationality is at the very top. now emotion as the base, has more control and power, without it the tower falls, rationality rules at the top because it "controls" emotion and takes other aspects into account, but it still needs emotion. animals have emotion - they cry, no matter how basic this instinct is, it happens, but they know at times they cant cry, when theya re in danger they stfu, rationality - exact same as humans. kinda hard to explain.

sorry if its all a bit hard to follow and poorly explained, tired and kind of hard to put all these thoughts togethar.
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
shit happens, and if someone has gone tits up there is no point worrying about it. or infact dont even worry about something that is gonna go tits u, because those little chemical and electrical signals in your brain isnt going to change anything.
 

Infanity

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
3,774
Ame said:
How about:

You can either win or loose in a game, but you can only loose in life.
my.php
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Well i don't think life sucks, it's just a term.

Steve Jackson said, in FRAG the FPS board game about getting spawnkilled: "Life sucks, and then you die...again"

This summed up rather niftily what life is about too.

It DOES suck. Pain sucks, relationships suck at times, work sucks on occasion, cold breeze that blows your nipples off..sucks!, having to go through a whole month with a fiver in your pocket....*drumroll*...sucks!

It doesn't mean that it sucks all the time, but in most cases, it will suck over and over again with periods of not suckiness.

Trees and birds and flowers and sunshine are all nice(if you like it), but they don't f*cking keep you in their arms when life, well, sucks or pay the bills so you can have heat, food and a shelter.

Life has to suck so you can enjoy it.

Unless you were born rich, in which case, give some or f*ck off.

BTW Ezteq, i have black nails, black hair, listen to metal and i don't think of killing myself or be all grim deathdeath...nor does many of my metal friends.

You should know better for what you wrote in the "black nazi" thread about chavs.
 

Outlander

Part of the furniture
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
3,069
Life sucks, then your born.

difference between humans and anmals is animals crap where they eat :p

(oh and they do it in the woods too :D)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom