|
Post by jaedrik on Aug 29, 2014 23:26:08 GMT -5
One does not simply become competitive. Competitive and casual is a false dichotomy. It is a sliding scale with boundaries and goals. We must refer to so many abstract notions such as skill ceiling, curves, make graphs to visualize what we mean, and so on.
What would motivate a casual player to improve himself? Presumably, a desire to defeat superior opponents, or to improve himself. Yet, in that very statement we see that equality is an irreconcilable sentiment to competition, for without inequality there would be no superior opponent. For the sake of improvement, one must measure himself to the inequality. One must acknowledge the inequality. It is inevitable.
The higher the skill ceiling of a game, generally, the larger the gaps between levels of players. The lower the skill ceiling of a game, generally, the smaller the gaps and the less frequently they appear. When the scale changes, when the scope of knowledge about a game increases, ranges that were slight curves beforehand become much flatter. Whence one views what could happen, and what ought happen, compared to what does happen, the gaps become readily apparent. In this way we say that the gap between certain players is distinct. It is clearly definable. In games with lower skill ceilings, it is more difficult for an individual, who is putting forth effort to improve himself, to actually improve himself. It is more difficult to observe what they ought improve on, what skills they should practice, what they should expand on.
Then what of the people who do not have the same level of passion to do whatever it takes to improve themselves? Why ought those more passionate to improve themselves be hobbled so that those who put forth less effort would for longer enjoy the fantasy that they are decent players, where those that put forth the effort will still beat them save a smaller gap between them? Surely, there is no place in noble thought for appeasing this jealousy, this arrogant baseness. Being a generalization, it is the general nature of their plight. They are not genuine in their intention to improve themselves. For we have those that clearly stood above the rest, and it is inevitably so. Those of less skill and effort and passion will, no matter the game, always be edged out by those who have more.
It might seem cruel, but it is the natural and inexorable implication of human action. I assure you that it is not cruel, it is noble and just that equality is not part of the natural law, for otherwise there would exist no differences among mankind at all.
If a game designer be magnanimous, there is no other choice other than to design a game with a high skill ceiling if his intention be to provide fun for both the casual and Touch Football audiences.
Now, the only other perspective that can be taken is this: the core mechanics and basic mastery of skills which everything else builds off of ought not be difficult to learn.
However, if basic is an absolute term, then it cannot be set at an arbitrary percent of the various techniques of a given game. As for what other absolute it could be set at, I am confounded, since there seems none. If basic be an absolutely relative term (hon hon hon, it seems an oxywacky guy already!) then how can we know on any basis ever that any distinction we make is reliable in the slightest, are we not groping in the dark for illusory absolutes? There is a third way. That which is a basic skill seems relative to each level. Put another way it means the techniques and skills that clearly distinguish one level from another are the basics of that level. The more subtle things we can put aside as not as immediately integral to the upward journey of progress.
One cannot see that which they have no knowledge of. One cannot perceive or conceive of those who are of a higher skill level without the observation of them. Therefore, for those who do not observe the skill levels which are outside their limited scope are stunted in the fact that they do not know the capacity of the game, in that they have no canon, no measuring rod, no saint, no lodestar. But, those that do not observe higher skill levels are ultimately unconcerned with it, for it cannot enter into their consideration except by deliberate abstraction and intense analysis, therefore it is said that the segregation of casuals and Touch Football players is both viable and admirable. It is not the sole intention of matchmaking, however. That might be a discussion for another time.
With the above two facts, it is plain that 'casual' is a subjective term. That is, the distinction between casual and Touch Football is found within the observer who has for his object another player. Casual is generally those who are in the lowest known skill range. A Touch Football player is to the observer generally he who is in the highest known skill range.
It is shown, in the above, that designing for casual and Touch Football players can be done at the same time, and it is a false dichotomy to suppose that one cannot cater to both. Further, it has been proven that equality is not part of the natural law, and the nobility of it in the positive law was called into question. Lastly, it was demonstrated that there are multiple levels of skill, each of which have their own entrance requirements.
Dear Denizens. Define that which is skill. Let us create a manifesto of game design. Let us enumerate that which is good, that which is rightly ordered game design. Let us compile an infinitum of examples in all video gamedom. And, if this more belong in 'what' than in 'other games', so be it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2014 13:54:55 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2014 16:10:14 GMT -5
All hail Maus, the true overlord of Denkirson!
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Aug 30, 2014 20:02:46 GMT -5
I'm a hacker and I hack video games because I suck ftfy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2014 13:52:46 GMT -5
I'm a hacker and I hack video games because I suck ftfy u just jelly of mah skillz
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Sept 30, 2014 0:10:56 GMT -5
Whether a game predisposed to offensive play is competitive?Objection 1. It seems that a neutral position in a game's design is more desirable than an unfavorable position for one person or another. For a neutral position guarantees a greater interplay of opposed forces. Now, depth is said to be the number and quality of emergent and viable gameplay choices one has to decide between. Therefore, a neutral position is conducive to a superior metagame. Objection 2. Further, an unfavorable position implies the decrease in choices. But the opponent comparatively gains choices. Therefore, it is said that one side gains such options as to nullify the choices of his opponent, and there by its excess overwhelm the opponent into an even worse position. Objection 3. Further, it is more exciting to observe the neutral interplay between opponents. Since it is known that they are both on equal footing. Therefore, the skill of one is emphasized when they more regularly succeed over another in the neutral position. Objection 4. Further, it seems that a more defensively oriented game serves to create this desirable play state of constant neutral position. For as one's defensive options increase so too does the ability for one to incur the neutral state from a potentially unfavorable position. On the contrary, a neutral position is the medium by which one enters in to various other positions, here where one has the advantage over another, there where all have less options, and another place where all have more options, thus there is the greater depth in that which has numerous other significant possible positions. For, as The Scholar and The Economist say, action cannot be considered human insofar as there are no alternatives to deliberate among. I answer that, a game predisposed to offensiveness is competitive. For, without a rich and meaningful offense there is no possibility of a rich and meaningful defense. For the two are opposed in that an expansion in the depth of one necessitates an expansion in the depth of the other, since the object of offense is to break defense and the object of defense is to thwart offence. This is most powerfully demonstrated when we observe maneuvers which carry the implication of both offense and defense, that is, an offensive option which shuts down some of the opponent's offensive options, thus thwarting them. Reply to Objection 1. The variance of said interplay cannot change when relegated to one position alone. Interplay between opponents is deepened when the more options imply a shift in mindset entirely, that is, a change in the interplay. Reply to Objection 2. Choice is not a proportional constant that is split between opponents. Reply to Objection 3. It is a far greater, more explicit, or poignant testament to one's skill to be able to pull a favorable condition from generally unfavorable circumstances. Further, a competition is just as much centered around a celebration of the richness of a game's mechanics as they are the manipulation of said mechanics by competitors, and we have already demonstrated that a constant neutral lacks depth. Reply to Objection 4. A defensive option is not truly an option unless it incurs risk, for if it incurred no risk then there be no viable choice other than to constantly use it to neutralize any threat from the opponent. Likewise, the opponent would do the same. Edit: The Scholar and The Economist are St. Thomas Aquinas and Ludwig Von Mises, respectively.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Sept 30, 2014 8:03:55 GMT -5
"'Now, depth is said to be the number and quality of emergent and viable gameplay choices one has to decide between.'
No. No no no.
This is breadth.
This is the exact inverse of depth.
Depth is how many layers of legitimate future choices can be examined--"how many moves ahead" players are empowered to think.
Adding breadth reduces depth for any player agent with a finite processing capability, including humans. In this context, they are opposed in a dichotomy. If we consider yomi (fractal depth) separate from standard depth, then it's a trichotomy.
**********
Regardless, the topic is moot. Competitiveness is not a property of a game, it is a property of a community. A game itself cannot be competitive or non-competitive. Furthermore, what properties are most conducive to establishing a competitive community are entirely subjective."
---
It has been demonstrated that there is no depth without breadth, for, as The Scholar and The Economist say, if the options number but one, then there is no choice, since there are no alternatives to deliberate among. Likewise, the quality of the options alone is insufficient to elucidate the full 'breadth' of depth, as it were, since it could be understood that the quality of a few options is high. Yet another game may have a few options that are of lesser quality but far greater in quantity, therefore making the general character of one game have more depth.
Further, breadth is not simply the number of choices alone. For, one may say that, regarding one game, that there are many options with few of them relevant to the goal at hand, and therefore do not enter or enter in a lesser desirability the consideration of the individual when deliberating among routes to take. Therefore it is more patently clear which options one would take more often in a variety of circumstances. On the other hand, one may say that, regarding another game, there is a likewise number of options with most of them relevant to the goal at hand, and therefore they all enter the consideration of the individual in a higher regard. Therefore, one can see that the object of breadth is not the inverse of depth, for a mere increase in the number of options is not indicative of the circumstances surrounding said options. If it were, breadth would more accurately be described as both the number of choices and the ease of deliberating among them. Yet even this is a flawed definition, for it is to suppose that a game with a perpetually uncertain choice has an infinite depth. This is patently not so, since depth consists not in the act of deliberating but rather has for its object the game's mechanics themselves, as even you acknowledge.
There must be addressed the nature of depth in a temporal context. One has not to consider possibilities on the spot where the reach of our mind is narrowed. Indeed, it is said that those that deliberate beforehand and practice the execution of such a maneuver are participating in the 'metagame'. That is, they are participating of the game beforehand. This is as The Philosopher (Aristotle) says, for Metaphysics is the science of the nature of the concepts we rely upon to distinguish the various other physics, without which we have no framework for interpreting any causal consequence. It is 'before' the physics, metagame is 'before' the game. But it is the nature of a choice that the choice already be decided if the action be deliberate, for one cannot choose that which happens upon them, rather only what they happen to do about it. Therefore, depth cannot be understood merely in a temporal way, though it is useful for demonstrating many properties of depth.
Competition is the act of competing, where the opposite is to choose not to compete, for without at least two subjects there is no competition. Yet, competition necessitates a medium by which these two or more compete. Now, you are entirely right in that the willingness to compete, and therefore the competition, is found in the subject that observes it. However, each person has for their object the competition itself in addition to the good desired from the competition. Now, for a competition to conclude, one must have an advantage over the other in some way lest it be a draw. It is true that we, as tournament organizers, make our rules how we see fit, and therefore determine what this advantage consists of. But, the results of those rules are a natural product, that is, they are found in the object of the competition. It is only understood that one succeeds a competition in that they abide by said rules. Therefore, competition is not merely subjective, it is normative. That is, it implies a norm or standard by which two or more people compete against each other. For, there can be no competition where there is no game, and a game is a normative set of rules. Therefore, it cannot be said that competitiveness is entirely subjective, since some result must be found in the norm that is the object rather than the subject. Therefore, it can be said that the rules are the cause of competition, and insofar as those rules are either conducive or not conducive to the decision between the two or more opponents in a satisfactory manner, they are properly understood as more or less competitive.
Edit: The original question of the above post is not whether and offensive game is more competitive than a defensive game. Rather it is whether the offensive game can be understood as competitive. We have proven that it can be.
|
|
Dumien
True Bro
Black Market Trader
No engrams. Only disappointment.
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by Dumien on Sept 30, 2014 9:04:57 GMT -5
Welcome to philosophy.
Mouse.
|
|
Dumien
True Bro
Black Market Trader
No engrams. Only disappointment.
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by Dumien on Sept 30, 2014 9:23:17 GMT -5
Did...did Jaedrik take your lunch money again? That is some mighty hostility you are spewing at what looks to be a hobby project. The guy obviously loves and reads philosophy and is taking a stab at the craft himself. You don't paint your masterpiece on your first go. You try (and fail) to paint like the masters.
I know he was a philosophy major. I had many a good chat with that dude. Being an ass was part of his charm. Brutal honesty is pretty uncommon nowadays.
|
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Sept 30, 2014 10:02:01 GMT -5
Skill is.
|
|
Dumien
True Bro
Black Market Trader
No engrams. Only disappointment.
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by Dumien on Sept 30, 2014 11:13:22 GMT -5
I miss aids.
Yup.
btw alot of philosophers were super long-winded. Being concise only works when the language used is precise and previously defined. It is different when you in the struggle to define it.
|
|
Dumien
True Bro
Black Market Trader
No engrams. Only disappointment.
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by Dumien on Sept 30, 2014 11:31:03 GMT -5
Also, I'm not trying to white knight for Jae here, I just think this work deserves constructive criticism. I wouldn't spit on a piece of cheese that is halfway down your throat. Either you are going to swallow it anyways (because you think cheese is just that good) or you are going to vomit it up (and stop eating cheese for a good long while).
Aids' method works well for enemies, not friends.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Sept 30, 2014 12:20:39 GMT -5
I am a scrublord, can confirm. Yeah, my style is pretty derivative in the first post, I'm just copying Aquinas' form. Obviously my bias is "Foxtrot Brawl, and casuals, Melee competitive master race, bitches!" What sparked this is actually Leffen was being a badass and pooping on Smash 4. Everyone normally hates on him, and I did too, since he's a real ass, like, holy doo doo, at tournaments a long while ago he used to talk so much smack and all this other stuff that Sweden banned him for a year or something. Yeah, but he's cool now. That's what D1 says, and I trust that guy. My definition of 'depth' I just kinda passed over at the first because I'm just using Extra Credits' definition. I probably should have referenced them and given them a name like "The Developers" I'd like to note that the one response I got on Smashboards has like 6 likes and my response which (in my mind) disproves it has zero. Nobody else has responded yet. This is probably for the reasons Mouse stated. His is just a terse denial, straight to the point. Whereas I'm trying to use all these highfalutin words to prove popular opinion wrong. I feer so ronery. Edit: I do like this board a lot more, though. Everyone's pretty free to say whatever they want. Edit: I do like run on sentences, though, they make me feel like I'm flowing through a topic, flowing like some non-grammatical idiot. Edit: And by 'popular opinion' I mean the people I label as casual elitists, which seems like an oxywacky guy. I feel pretty prejudiced right now.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Sept 30, 2014 13:07:34 GMT -5
My definition of 'depth' I just kinda passed over at the first because I'm just using Extra Credits' definition. yeaaaahhhh i've said it before but I hate those guys. It always comes off with some smug authority despite a lot of the scenarios they present being overly idealistic or a complete ass pull. They have to of course, since otherwise every third word of an episode would be "maybe," but they annoy the shit out of me. I agree, a lot of the stuff they say I'm like "horse doo doo", but I find them fun to watch regardless, because to know another's words is to know your own more fully. They have a lot of leverage too.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Sept 30, 2014 13:53:44 GMT -5
When I get some free time, I'm definitely going at this treatise with a red pen. Welcome to philosophy. Mouse. Except this isn't philosophy. Philosophy seeks to distill the complex down to the essential, not inflate the basic into the intractable. Kinda like this.
|
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Sept 30, 2014 14:05:54 GMT -5
Except this isn't philosophy. Philosophy seeks to distill the complex down to the essential, not inflate the basic into the intractable. Kinda like this. which I did.
|
|
n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Sept 30, 2014 14:07:56 GMT -5
ITT: scrubs.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Sept 30, 2014 14:09:18 GMT -5
Except this isn't philosophy. Philosophy seeks to distill the complex down to the essential, not inflate the basic into the intractable. Kinda like this. which I did. Pineapple.
|
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Sept 30, 2014 14:17:08 GMT -5
Skill can mean many things to many people. Skill is like "quality" and what is skill for one player is different for another. While certain acts can be agreed upon as skilled, or certain players can be agreed upon as skilled, it is still far too objective as to what it is... there is no standard.
Thus, skill is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 14:22:56 GMT -5
I love your poetic shit, jae
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Sept 30, 2014 14:23:00 GMT -5
Uhhhh I wouldn't say that. They have leverage in the same way every video series has leverage over its viewers, and they influence a lot of newer indie devs. The creative design aspects is where their actual substance comes from, which isn't really the hard part when it comes to bigger budget games. Unless you meant something else by that. I see them posted in forums (once or twice here) often by people, whenever a discussion flares up, that they've made a video that's remotely relevant. But, I guess that's their viewership, so, I don't know. I think I was trying to hard to be friendly. When I get some free time, I'm definitely going at this treatise with a red pen. Thank you.
|
|
markopolo
True Bro
Once a LMG Camper, Then a Voidlock, Now a Lexington 25-8-366 Runner
Posts: 5,567
|
Post by markopolo on Sept 30, 2014 14:49:24 GMT -5
I think your point was better before that. Lots of things are subjective. That's what makes discussing them interesting. Maybe... but it can also be an exercise in futility
|
|
Dumien
True Bro
Black Market Trader
No engrams. Only disappointment.
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by Dumien on Sept 30, 2014 16:46:27 GMT -5
Philosophy seeks to distill the complex down to the essential, not inflate the basic into the intractable. Eheheh... that is too narrow a definition. You can have something that tries to distill the complex down to the essential (like Descartes' Epistemology) fall to its intractable-ness (Hobbes assaults the messiness of the language he uses). You can have something that inflates the basic into the intractable (like Berkeley's Immaterialism) plague philosophers for decades because of its philosophical force (Kant's best idea was to replace it with transcendental idealism).
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Sept 30, 2014 17:20:39 GMT -5
It so happens that something's essential nature often must be described in more words, for one connotation alone often implies many others by necessity.
Lifted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, here is the definition I use for philosophy. It shares many similarities with Probaddie's proclamation, and Descartes'.
"'[T]he general science of things in the universe by their ultimate determinations and reasons'; or again, 'the intimate knowledge of the causes and reasons of things', the profound knowledge of the universal order."
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Sept 30, 2014 18:52:28 GMT -5
Philosophy seeks to distill the complex down to the essential, not inflate the basic into the intractable. Eheheh... that is too narrow a definition. You can have something that tries to distill the complex down to the essential (like Descartes' Epistemology) fall to its intractable-ness (Hobbes assaults the messiness of the language he uses). You can have something that inflates the basic into the intractable (like Berkeley's Immaterialism) plague philosophers for decades because of its philosophical force (Kant's best idea was to replace it with transcendental idealism). To your first point: I'm not as familiar with Descartes as I assume you are. But if it truly does devolve into a mess like you say it does then I agree with Hobbes that it is not useful discourse. I grant you that the complexity of an argument is a function of the complexity of the object of consideration, and that not all things lend themselves to simple reasoning or description. That said, it is not the ethos of philosophical reasoning - or any brand or reasoning - to give assent to complex treatises when simpler ones suffice to provide the same insight. To your second: That, again, is something complex which requires a complex description. Nothing simpler - I am trusting your evaluation of your own examples here; I have not personally read Berkley - will do. Were a simpler framework of reasoning were to be devised that answered the same questions as Berkley did (to the same level of satisfaction) we surely would all agree this to be the superior argument. I never meant to say that philosophy is simple, or that it comprises only simple, easily accessible arguments. (I maybe should have said that "philosophy... should not artificially inflate the basic into the intractable.") The goal of philosophy is truth, and truth can only be ascertained by human minds when it is distilled into a form that our minds can interpret - I take for granted that the universe holds more information and is more complex than our minds are physically capable of holding and interpreting. That necessarily requires a simplification of pertinent facts, and so should be the ultimate goal of philosophical reasoning.
|
|
Dumien
True Bro
Black Market Trader
No engrams. Only disappointment.
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by Dumien on Oct 1, 2014 4:10:02 GMT -5
I agree completely. I'm bad at math, but even I know that A-B=C-B is inefficient when compared to A=C. Protracting an argument/statement/treatise without sufficient cause is merely an act of inefficiency. However, I caution people (including myself) to read into why a philosopher might protract any given piece when it seems like it could have been written in a simpler fashion.
There is a reason I gave my two examples.
Berkeley starts with the odd "nothing exists but the mind and its contents" (a very condensed version of the beginnings of his ontology). This is the "basic" to which I referred. He then moves on to examine the consequences of that statement (the "intractable")...the consequences leading to his true goal. Nothing exists unless it is being perceived within a mind. That tree that falls in a forest with no one around to hear it? Must not exist. But wait, What could explain something being the same when is has gone a long time without being perceived by a mind? I sit at my chair and I perceive it. I leave the room. The chair must not exist since no one is around to perceive it. What, then, explains its existence when I return to the room? Berkeley's answer is God... a mind that perceives all things. The consequences were troubling for many philosophers because of the difficulty of dealing with the initial statement... This was Berkeley's ultimate goal... his proof for God.
Descartes' Epistemology conversely starts with a large scope...all the senses... and whittles it down to the famous "cogito ergo sum" by throwing doubt on all his senses. Descartes gets into trouble when he does try to make his argument more concise, because of the frailty of arguments used to whittle down the scope in the first place. It is interesting to note that Descartes does something similar to Berkeley (Berkeley did something similar to Descartes if we are being date sensitive)... He takes "I think therefore I am" and turns it into his proof for God.
In fact, Descartes' philosophy ends up relying on the existence of God if pressed hard enough. That proof ends up failing because the concision of his arguments was weak. Berkeley's philosophy was so upsetting to some people because it had a solid starting point that blatantly inflated to the existence of God. You accept the initial statement and (its seems like) you must accept the consequence. To be fair...Berkeley's theory is a bit nutty. It is counter-intuitive at the highest degree. It is just tough to take down.
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Oct 1, 2014 6:57:34 GMT -5
Probuddy.jpeg
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Oct 1, 2014 7:38:55 GMT -5
Probuddy.jpeg If that's me, then everyone knows I'm a dog. But no one knows you're a dog on the internet. Therefore, that cannot be me. Check and mate, pony-boy. (I really do wish that was me. That tie looks boss as f**k.)
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Oct 1, 2014 7:49:55 GMT -5
I agree completely. I'm bad at math, but even I know that A-B=C-B is inefficient when compared to A=C. Protracting an argument/statement/treatise without sufficient cause is merely an act of inefficiency. However, I caution people (including myself) to read into why a philosopher might protract any given piece when it seems like it could have been written in a simpler fashion. There is a reason I gave my two examples. Berkeley starts with the odd "nothing exists but the mind and its contents" (a very condensed version of the beginnings of his ontology). This is the "basic" to which I referred. He then moves on to examine the consequences of that statement (the "intractable")...the consequences leading to his true goal. Nothing exists unless it is being perceived within a mind. That tree that falls in a forest with no one around to hear it? Must not exist. But wait, What could explain something being the same when is has gone a long time without being perceived by a mind? I sit at my chair and I perceive it. I leave the room. The chair must not exist since no one is around to perceive it. What, then, explains its existence when I return to the room? Berkeley's answer is God... a mind that perceives all things. The consequences were troubling for many philosophers because of the difficulty of dealing with the initial statement... This was Berkeley's ultimate goal... his proof for God. Descartes' Epistemology conversely starts with a large scope...all the senses... and whittles it down to the famous "cogito ergo sum" by throwing doubt on all his senses. Descartes gets into trouble when he does try to make his argument more concise, because of the frailty of arguments used to whittle down the scope in the first place. It is interesting to note that Descartes does something similar to Berkeley (Berkeley did something similar to Descartes if we are being date sensitive)... He takes "I think therefore I am" and turns it into his proof for God. In fact, Descartes' philosophy ends up relying on the existence of God if pressed hard enough. That proof ends up failing because the concision of his arguments was weak. Berkeley's philosophy was so upsetting to some people because it had a solid starting point that blatantly inflated to the existence of God. You accept the initial statement and (its seems like) you must accept the consequence. To be fair...Berkeley's theory is a bit nutty. It is counter-intuitive at the highest degree. It is just tough to take down. And I agree with you: any simplification that loses essential meaning or weakens an argument is counter-productive. These all seem like examples that are worthwhile reading - though my first and immediate criticism of Berkeley is how I can validate or accept the existence of "other" minds outside my own if I cannot perceive their contents, let alone one which persistently perceives all things. Maybe he answered that concern already, but in any case I'll be looking into this in my free time. Thank you for the examples and the responses.
|
|
Dumien
True Bro
Black Market Trader
No engrams. Only disappointment.
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by Dumien on Oct 1, 2014 14:55:58 GMT -5
And Thank you for the discussion.
|
|