AuthorTopic: Official Off-Topic Thread  (Read 257204 times)

Offline The B.O.B.

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 699
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • currently losering it up...
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #380 on: August 11, 2008, 04:47:42 am
   I wasn't meaning them to be one in the same. I was saying how one screws the other in the end. And I've read up on(though not extensively) other religions, though I'm picking on Christianity the most, because it can end up being the most pretentious sometimes.(next to Scientology, the most awesome of religions, heh).

   I know I'm not clear in what I say most the time, but I just would like it to be known that my thoughts aren't against any religious beliefs or the thought of religion itself. Instead, it's against how people use and abuse it towards others. I welcome it with open arms sometimes, as they help people somehow cope with their problems. And anything helping people better themselves is fine by me, as long as they're not hurting others, themselves, or fully allowing it to cloud their overall judgment(though, it will partially affect their morals..this is understandable).

   But with any religion in general, my point to others is to just be happy. In the end, most religions end in the human journey to obtain happiness, or achieve that storybook ending. Some people tend to have vague thoughts toward happiness, or entirely specific studies over it, and try to dissect it into superficial behaviors, or chemical reactions causing the brain to act a certain way; this is fine for them, but to my primalistic brain, it's just another definition, to another word, to another sentence, that was, again, man-made. Sad to say, but sometimes, "Ignorance is Bliss." I can't control a lot of things in my life, and especially others.The only thing I can ever hope for at the end of my life cycle, is to hopefully die with a smile on my face: I may pass in my sleep, during my later years, or I may get in a Gnarled car crash where I burn alive...but DAMN IT, this SMILE, they won't take away from me...ever.

*and who knows, maybe our life cycle doesn't necessarily end at death, but rather, another strange cycle of events that lead an unknown life-force to exit physical and enter non-physical activities. To which I say again, WE DON'T KNOW YET.*
my back hurts...

Offline Xion

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1551
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • FourbitFriday

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #381 on: August 11, 2008, 05:40:30 am
I won't pretend to have read all these posts. I don't really like discussions like this.

But

I've often heard the argument from atheists that religion is just a big cancer or something that wants to convert the whole world to its singular belief or something. What I don't get is why then, has every atheist I've encountered tried to convince me that God does not exist. I've never tried to "convert" anyone or convince them that my faith and way of life is the right way or the only way. Maybe that makes me a worse Christian for it, not spreading the word, (I'll explain my best if someone asks, but I'm not gonna go out of my way to be like "believe, mudda fukka!") but it doesn't explain why atheists (the ones I've met) argue that religion is just a way of controlling the masses or something, and then they go and try to convert me to their way of thinking. I mean, wtf? You're gonna say religion is bs and then try to convert me to nonreligion? I don't see the difference between a religious leader vehemently arguing against science and a scientist adamantly arguing against religion. They're both trying to convince people that their truth is truth, or at least truthier than the other's truth. So like, religion can be used as a vehicle for power but so then can science, really.

By the way, I'm not trying to say that religion and science can't live together harmoniously. I think that's nonsense. I'm just using science for lack of an opposite to religion.

But anyway. I agree with B.O.B. and others of you in that religions are an abstraction of a jackass personified when they're abused and whatnot. Like those mass suicides and stuff that're all like "world's gonna end lets kill ourselves!" I bet those dudes are totally disappointed right now. It's also annoying when people are all like uberpious and stuff and when they completely misinterpret things to the point of being the opposite of what their religion dictates they should ultimately be. Which, as far as I know, is usually kind, loving, understanding, but steadfast in certain areas. Like on that one wifeswap or whatever that show was, where the insane soulless "christian" woman totally flipped out and started calling the kids demons and stuff. She was crazy.

Uh what was I saying?

Anyway. Thing about religion is that it's usually just so easy to twist to ones own purposes. That's why it's often such a dick. I'm sure I'm guilty of such twisting. Still though. Yeah.

See, this is why I don't like these discussions. You guys are all using big words like pathologic and complicated terms like self-awareness and here I come with fucking "Um, like, yeah. And stuff."
But I know what I mean, and I know what I know, and I know what I believe, and I know what I'm unsure of. There may be some overlap in the areas, but I'm cool with that. I'll deal with it later. After I learn bigger words and smarter things.

Offline AdamAtomic

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1188
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • natural born medic
    • View Profile
    • Adam Atomic

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #382 on: August 11, 2008, 05:56:16 am
Quote
bla bla bla religion bla bla bla god



QED

Offline chriskot

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #383 on: August 11, 2008, 05:59:45 am
BIG POST WARNING!

... I wonder, could I apply that logic to video games, too?

Not really, imo, in that most videogames present a rather unhealthy way to spend time and have the player completely absorbed in attaining some nonexistant (or inconsequential) goal.  Music, on the other hand, is often a social, human force.  Although there's certainly plenty of music that involves wasting time and isolating yourself, i don't think that's the sort of thing they were talking about.  Also, although some games do encourage social interaction, its mostly a perverted form, in the sense of mmos, or an unnecessary form, in the case of party games.

I used to play a lot of videogames, from RPGs to RTS to MMO to FPS and i consider that - essentially - a waste of my life.  It gave me a place to hide but little else.  Again, not to say that people don't sit in their room alone and waste their lives trancing out to music, but that's not to be recommended either.
I love video games, so I'm clearly biased, but I like to see them as a sum of their parts. A good video game (to me) is some nice music, good story, excellent artwork, and a decent challenge all rolled into one nice, neat package. That's just my point of view though. Just out of curiosity, what do you think about books and movies? I'm curious as to where other people draw the line and why. I guess it sort of boils down to the "is it art?" argument, doesn't it? I know that Roger Ebert believes that video games can't be art simply because they're interactive, but I never really understood why that should matter.

I do relate somewhat, with the idea that atheism is empty. Mostly because when I have asked basic philosophical questions to people who declare they are "atheists" they just dont care. Because.....simply that is something that is not engaged in everyday life, and it doesnt deserve any thought, the purpose of being is irrelevant because hey...I dont have time for that, I got to get my paycheck.

Most religious people, dont care either. They believe they already have the answers. Why? because the religous leader said this and that, and it's very clear in passage number xxxx and xxxx.

So what I really have a pickle with, is not really either of the perspectives.But with the fact that they both have in common, that the very purpose of things, doesnt deserve any thought or investigation.
I always considered religion and philosophy to be two entirely separate things in that respect. Extreme theists may throw these sort of questions away because they think that they know all of the answers already, but otherwise it seems to be more a matter of curiosity, which I think is completely independent from most religious views. Everybody has at least some sort of sway towards either atheism or theism, so if you can have a philosophical discussion with anyone then it can't be completely related.

...and animals who THINK they understand what created them and know how they got here: But we don't, and never will. This knowledge isn't attainable, as cynical as it may sound, and our willingness to keep striving for more answers only leads to more questions. Obviously the previous description is silly thinking, as God may not exist, or may be some pig-snake creature somewhere. Point is, I don't know. No body knows. So it'd be nice if we stopped acting like we knew and just lived our lives with one another.
That's the basic premise of agnosticism as I tried to describe it earlier, although I think that you summed it up better.

   Thing about religion is, it's a good way for one to live in social, civilized life with others. Taking it literally word for word is non-sense in my opinion; but I'm ok with people living their lives this way, as long as it doesn't involve "recruiting" others to join them. THAT is effin' annoying.
Seconded.

I've often heard the argument from atheists that religion is just a big cancer or something that wants to convert the whole world to its singular belief or something. What I don't get is why then, has every atheist I've encountered tried to convince me that God does not exist. I've never tried to "convert" anyone or convince them that my faith and way of life is the right way or the only way. Maybe that makes me a worse Christian for it, not spreading the word, (I'll explain my best if someone asks, but I'm not gonna go out of my way to be like "believe, mudda fukka!") but it doesn't explain why atheists (the ones I've met) argue that religion is just a way of controlling the masses or something, and then they go and try to convert me to their way of thinking. I mean, wtf? You're gonna say religion is bs and then try to convert me to nonreligion? I don't see the difference between a religious leader vehemently arguing against science and a scientist adamantly arguing against religion. They're both trying to convince people that their truth is truth, or at least truthier than the other's truth. So like, religion can be used as a vehicle for power but so then can science, really.
I try not to try to convert people because I recognize that they are the exact same thing. Atheists generally believe that they have a greater right to try and convert you because they base things only off of observation, but an agnostic recognizes that "knowing" that there is no god is impossible, and hence that atheism is almost or just as faith-based as any other religion (that's right, atheism is still a religion).


...I think that about covers all of my thoughts at the moment.

Offline Evan

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 317
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Marv-O
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #384 on: August 11, 2008, 06:13:52 am
I've often heard the argument from atheists that religion is just a big cancer or something that wants to convert the whole world to its singular belief or something. What I don't get is why then, has every atheist I've encountered tried to convince me that God does not exist. I've never tried to "convert" anyone or convince them that my faith and way of life is the right way or the only way. Maybe that makes me a worse Christian for it, not spreading the word, (I'll explain my best if someone asks, but I'm not gonna go out of my way to be like "believe, mudda fukka!") but it doesn't explain why atheists (the ones I've met) argue that religion is just a way of controlling the masses or something, and then they go and try to convert me to their way of thinking. I mean, wtf? You're gonna say religion is bs and then try to convert me to nonreligion? I don't see the difference between a religious leader vehemently arguing against science and a scientist adamantly arguing against religion. They're both trying to convince people that their truth is truth, or at least truthier than the other's truth. So like, religion can be used as a vehicle for power but so then can science, really.

I could say the same about Christians. It wouldn't be true, but it wouldn't be any less true than your statement. Simple ad hominem attacks about "people constantly trying to convert others" are easy to throw into a discussion about religion and spirituality, but the simple truth is that there are those on both sides, probably in equal numbers, that vehemently try to convert the other side to their way of thinking.

The only difference that I've observed between the two arguments is the quality of the arguments, in the sense that one side tends to have a lot more quantitative proof on its side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0_oBuNvDhQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo&feature=related

While I was writing this, chriskot brought up some good points, specifically about the argument to which I refer in my post. While I do agree that atheism is equally as faith-based as Christianity, I have yet to find any proof that points towards creationism, or even intelligent design. Any attempts to disprove evolution, at least ones that I've seen, are just ignorant, and can often be countered quite readily. I'm not saying that there is absolutely no possibility that there is some divine being sitting up there watching us, but if there is, I bet it's pretty laid back, and just lets stuff happen.

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504 Peanut Butter and Bananas; Creationism seems tasty!
« Last Edit: August 11, 2008, 06:17:45 am by Evan »

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #385 on: August 11, 2008, 06:28:21 am
See now what wonderful discussion can happen when people aren't afraid someone will tell them to shut up just because they're discussing religion?

Xion:
Quote
For this reason, agnostics are usually broken down into agnostic-theists (people who acknowledge that their absolute faith in god is irrational), atheist-agnostics (people who acknowledge that their absolute faith against god is irrational, like me), and undecided agnostics.

Actually all agnostics are not theists. The ones that are not sure of this God thing are 'weak agnostics' and the ones that are very very close to certain that they can't exist are 'strong' ones. If there's a person that has an absolute faith in god, whether they give you that it is irrational or not, are some kind of theist, by definition.

Nd:
Quote
This seems, to be honest, as much a way of running from the issue as blind acceptance of paradise, and full of criss-crossing logic.

I am not sure I understand you.

Quote
If self-awareness is, as you say, inherently pathologic, then there is something in there to be aware of, which directly contradicts the idea that there is nothing in particular, and there's nothing stoic about hiding from truth.

Self-awareness I mean in the strict biological sense where a natural survival mechanism like an animal (we are animals) starts to run danger simulations so complex that there arrives a need for it to factor in its own presence with the memory of past desire and mistake. Therein arises the issue of consciousness, and that is where pathology starts as well. When I said 'self-awareness', I meant consciousness, the knowledge of oneself as separate from the other. I did not mean any quest to know everything about yourself, just you know, saying that there's an 'NDchristie' that is this bunch of organs and synapses who goes about doing this or that. There starts the pathologic behaviour, it is inherent in how the human machine works.

Quote
Perhaps this was a miswording?  It makes sense to me if you say that the pursuit of self-awareness is pathologic (because self-awareness is unachievable), therefor nothing is to be believed in and there's comfort in knowing that there's nothing.  Although I disagree with that viewpoint (as it takes the rather arrogant view that you could, in you twenties, know enough to know that there is nothing), it follows a process.

Do you understand me clearer now?

Quote
Personally I believe that it is the pursuit of this unattainable knowledge that gives life some meaning, and that the worst thing that a person can do is to either have no doubt that a belief is true, to never fear and therefor never be tested, or to be absolutely certain that a belief is false, to resign and never face the possibility.

It is for me more an issue of doing what makes you happy, and analyzing it too, just as long as you keep inside you the reminder - and the humor that comes with that - that any realization to which you may arrive is inherently not TRUE, because there is no such thing as TRUTH. This is an epistemological discussion of what can be considered dependable knowledge and how people who think they know TRUE things are torturing their psyche. It is a far-reaching discussion and I'm willing to have it with you - or anyone - just as long as we're on the same page.

Quote
The middle ground is what I've been calling faith: facing directly the culmination of all of your fears and offering yourself to them wholly.  Accepting both that there could be nothing or everything, and that it is your "job" as a living being to seek the truth. And yeah, enjoying the squirrels.

This truth thing, you'll probably find quite soon, is probably something like a psychological illness.

Conceit:
Quote
I do relate somewhat, with the idea that atheism is empty. Mostly because when I have asked basic philosophical questions to people who declare they are "atheists" they just dont care. Because.....simply that is something that is not engaged in everyday life, and it doesnt deserve any thought, the purpose of being is irrelevant because hey...I dont have time for that, I got to get my paycheck.

I can see that. But also consider the other side of it. When you ask a 'loaded' philosophical question to a person that has come to be an atheist, like 'does god exist?' (which is a loaded question because first one should consider 'what is this god, what does it mean' before they consider whether it can exist or not) a 'seasoned' atheist might take that as a cue that you have not thought about this enough on your own time and a discussion of the same-ol' cannot serve a useful end. So they leave you alone to think about your own question a bit more before it is ready to be argued. I personally give hints on this one, but I like to argue (even though inside I know it doesn't lead to any dependable knowledge, but it's fun for me nonetheless!) but other people might not enjoy it as much. That doesn't mean they're going for a paycheck.

Quote
I believe it is CRUCIAL that what they believe it isnt something they THINK it's out there, but that they know whitout doubt from experience that it IS there. I feel like you havent really lived if you never have this.

I dunno, that sounds like psychosis to me. I aren't even in the position to tell you that I BELIEVE I even exist anymore, and I've never been healthier in my life. I can function as well as any random person, I just don't have the pathological breakdowns that follow when you henge your whole existence into faulty but inescapable assumptions.

B.O.B.

Quote
Not to mention the story of Jesus and having it retold over and over, and making us ashamed of what happened to him.

Heh yeah I kinda like that one on psychoanalytical terms. A huge guilt trip. To this I often reply - somewhat antagonistically, I'll give you that - Jesus didn't die for my sins, he died for his own. Ah, Crass, aren't I?

Xion again:
Quote
I've often heard the argument from atheists that religion is just a big cancer or something that wants to convert the whole world to its singular belief or something. What I don't get is why then, has every atheist I've encountered tried to convince me that God does not exist.

Well I am sure that a lot of atheists align with that field out of a desire to belong and a desire to feel right and better than other people as well. They try to make you an atheist for the same reason a theist tries to recruit atheists: if the world has more people that agree with me, then the world is a safer place. It's a simple survival process. That being said, often atheists might engage you in theological conversation to the goal of making you not so much like them, but just more skeptical, to raise awareness of that perhaps things that seem right aren't reall that right. I do not see the harm in this: in fact when I am approached by missionaries and whatnot in Greece (usually Mormons!) I answer their questions as honestly as I can and if they try to pitch books to me I tell them I am not interested, and if they seem able and up to it, I will engage them in mild theological debate. It doesn't have to be all RRRR BE LIKE ME RRRR NO YOU BE LIKE ME. In the end we are trying to communicate, and for all our differences we long to be reassured that we are indeed, made of the same stuff. If we are not so afraid that our own self-definition will unravel if the various layers of counter-definition are peeled away, then it is actually a joy, it's absolutely exhilarating to discuss with a person that is wildly different from you. But what is required to do this? It is required that you don't actually believe in anything with 100% certainty. And that's a quite difficult place to come to be especially early in life.

Quote
By the way, I'm not trying to say that religion and science can't live together harmoniously. I think that's nonsense. I'm just using science for lack of an opposite to religion

Actually it's impossible that they can for real. It can only happen if people just play dumb about where they clash. Like 'umm we need science for flying cars, but I am not ready to abandon my divine daddy yet so let's pretend there isn't any contradiction in there'. Here's the thing: if people KNOW they are doing this and they don't mind, it's alright. If they suspect but try not to show it to not appear 'hypocritical' then it's the sort of thing that slowly makes you unbalanced.

Quote
See, this is why I don't like these discussions. You guys are all using big words like pathologic and complicated terms like self-awareness and here I come with fucking "Um, like, yeah. And stuff."

If you make an effort to understand what pathologic and self-awareness means when I say them, I will be very happy to make an effort to understand what you mean with 'um, like, yeah. And stuff'. They are both equally complex points of view, and my desire is to get to know you, and everybody, not define you nor defeat you.

chris:

Quote
I love video games, so I'm clearly biased, but I like to see them as a sum of their parts. A good video game (to me) is some nice music, good story, excellent artwork, and a decent challenge all rolled into one nice, neat package. That's just my point of view though. Just out of curiosity, what do you think about books and movies? I'm curious as to where other people draw the line and why. I guess it sort of boils down to the "is it art?" argument, doesn't it? I know that Roger Ebert believes that video games can't be art simply because they're interactive, but I never really understood why that should matter.

I guess by 'art' people mean 'does it affect me emotionally and spiritually on a higher level than super mario world?' and that's alright yeah. Well... a few games do that, sure. Not most of them around. They are not 'art' in that sense because their focus is on gameplay, and gameplay is a simulacrum for HUNTING and KILLING PREY. Do you think it's 'artistic' when an animal in the wild kills to eat? We are animals, we are made to hunt and kill even if in the last 5,000 years we don't do as much as we once did. We still have those instincts, and they need to be addressed in some benign way, so we manufacture fields in which to excel and be the 'Alpha males' and these aren't only sports and videogames, they are also fields of academia and even musical subcultures etc. People are antagonistic because that is how you survive. In these terms (and they are terms you would do well to integrate into your system of understanding the world) a great book, let's say 'Crime and Punishment' is so INFINITELY, EXTREMELY more layered and deep and resonant and meaningful and spiritually elevating than 99.9999% of videogames. Videogames are a very early medium and the people that make them care more about simulated killing than exciting the spirit. So there's some truth in what Ebert says.

« Last Edit: August 11, 2008, 07:02:01 am by Helm »

Offline Evan

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 317
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Marv-O
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #386 on: August 11, 2008, 06:56:44 am

Offline JJ Naas

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 409
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • My Deviantart page

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #387 on: August 11, 2008, 08:59:51 am
The whole Christian rock, and televangelist that's out there is what really grinds my teeth about how people tend to screw religion.

Nobody said it better than Frank Zappa: "Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over". ;)

Offline chriskot

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #388 on: August 11, 2008, 09:51:47 am
Quote
For this reason, agnostics are usually broken down into agnostic-theists (people who acknowledge that their absolute faith in god is irrational), atheist-agnostics (people who acknowledge that their absolute faith against god is irrational, like me), and undecided agnostics.
Actually all agnostics are not theists. The ones that are not sure of this God thing are 'weak agnostics' and the ones that are very very close to certain that they can't exist are 'strong' ones. If there's a person that has an absolute faith in god, whether they give you that it is irrational or not, are some kind of theist, by definition.

True, but I was under the impression that the "agnostic-" tag could be appended onto any religion of any person as long as they believed in the unprovability of any single standpoint (e.g.: agnostic-Christian, agnostic-Muslim, etc).


chris:

Quote
I love video games, so I'm clearly biased, but I like to see them as a sum of their parts. A good video game (to me) is some nice music, good story, excellent artwork, and a decent challenge all rolled into one nice, neat package. That's just my point of view though. Just out of curiosity, what do you think about books and movies? I'm curious as to where other people draw the line and why. I guess it sort of boils down to the "is it art?" argument, doesn't it? I know that Roger Ebert believes that video games can't be art simply because they're interactive, but I never really understood why that should matter.

I guess by 'art' people mean 'does it affect me emotionally and spiritually on a higher level than super mario world?' and that's alright yeah. Well... a few games do that, sure. Not most of them around. They are not 'art' in that sense because their focus is on gameplay, and gameplay is a simulacrum for HUNTING and KILLING PREY. Do you think it's 'artistic' when an animal in the wild kills to eat? We are animals, we are made to hunt and kill even if in the last 5,000 years we don't do as much as we once did. We still have those instincts, and they need to be addressed in some benign way, so we manufacture fields in which to excel and be the 'Alpha males' and these aren't only sports and videogames, they are also fields of academia and even musical subcultures etc. People are antagonistic because that is how you survive. In these terms (and they are terms you would do well to integrate into your system of understanding the world) a great book, let's say 'Crime and Punishment' is so INFINITELY, EXTREMELY more layered and deep and resonant and meaningful and spiritually elevating than 99.9999% of videogames. Videogames are a very early medium and the people that make them care more about simulated killing than exciting the spirit. So there's some truth in what Ebert says.

That I can definitely understand, and I can agree with. So interpreting from what you said, videogames certainly CAN be art, but the majority of them are not because they are simply designed to satisfy our primal desires to hunt. Completely understandable. I assume that this also rules out games that are designed around objectives like survival. I guess if you really want to work away at it, almost any conceivable objective can be tied to a basic instinct, although some of these ties would be slightly more tenuous then others (Katamari Damacy = Greed? Or am I trying to hard?). I guess the next question could be whether or not a game is art if it has no objective and minimal control over the ending, like Jason Rohrer's "Passage" (http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/passage/) or other arthouse-style games?
Also, this brings up another question. Ebert argues that movies are art (of course, since he is a film critic) but is a movie that satisfies similar desires without interactivity still art? For example, many movies have a villain that the person watching is intentionally meant to hate. Is the scene in which he falls to an untimely death "art", since it is usually created chiefly for the purpose of satisfying the part of the viewer that wanted him to die? I'm mainly taking about adrenaline-fueled action movies like "Die Hard", where there is no extra meaning behind it.

Oh, and apperently Ebert refined his view, saying that games could be art, but not high art. It's a fairly interesting read: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070721/COMMENTARY/70721001

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #389 on: August 11, 2008, 10:03:42 am
Oh the hoarding instinct is certainly a primordial one. As is the 'progress' effect when you grind in an MMO tightly related to ones instinctual desire for betting their status. And certainly any desire that we have is closely linked to our basic instincts (and even when roundaboutely, surely promotes survival) yet we also have existential concerns which really are more the result of error; as I said for all the good self-awareness has done the human animal (we are certainly at the top of the food chain) it also creates pathology, and we try to allevate that existential angst through art and other esoteric modes of expression. It is the balm for that sort of pain we most usually assign to be 'art'.

Passage made me cry the first time I played it, that is not the sort of thing most games do, therefore I hold it in higher regard than super mario world in terms of 'art' although understandably, super mario world plays better as a game. Braid is a recent example of something that both attracts through gameplay prowess and also excites conceptually and existentially. More of that, please.

And to your question about Ebert and films: certainly there are films - most films in fact - that are just action action vicarious killing YOU ARE A PREDATOR DO YOU FEEL THE EXCITEMENT and they are not what either he or I would consider very artistically valuable films. They might be well-made in terms of craft, but there is no high concept most of the time. Where Ebert is correct is saying that whereas there are lots of vicarious-living movies and a lot of games, there are certainly many, many more 'art' movies than there are 'art' games. However if Ebert says a videogame inherently cannot be art because there is interactivity is involved, he's full of shit. Was there ever a greater tool for affecting someone psychologically than letting them act and then describing the consequence? He is at error if he thinks player choice means severely malleable outcome. A choice can be made in a videogame and the videogame can show you different results for different choices, and these results are still written by the artist and still convey meaning. A sandbox game isn't the only type of game one can make. You can play a videogame where you can be nice to your grandmother and have her feed positive emotions back to you or you could be an asshole to your grandmother (for shame!!!) and she would get sad and you'd feel like a moron. Is that sort of interactivity non-artistic? Why? Video games are certainly the art form of the future, and the sooner they disassociate from their core the base desire of dominance, control and destruction, the sooner they'll start realizing what they can do.

I find distinctions between art and high art ridiculous.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2008, 10:09:33 am by Helm »