|
Post by Garamoth on Jun 17, 2009 22:03:46 GMT -5
i'll read the rest of that later, but already i'm interested in what he has to say.does anyone else find this interesting? if not, why bother with the site? i don't care if he's a misogynistic, egotistical 90-year-old transsexual. the idea sounds like it could make for an interesting article. Well, that's why I see him as a tragic hero. He often makes good points, but by the end of the article any good point is drowned in pointless insults, cheap profanity and the "word" LOL. Worst of all, he often uses the intellectual shortcuts and lazy writing tricks he spends his entire site condemning. Apparently, he used to be less of an asshole some time ago, if you can believe that. Anyway, despite the fact that posters tell him time and time again to be less abrasive, he never listens (He just BANS their sorry ass). A good teacher once told me that you can tell which people will never learn: they're the ones who spend all their time justifying their mistakes instead of correcting them. The worst of those people consider their mistakes as a sign of misunderstood genius. So he just digs deeper and deeper into his own blend of idiocy, and every step downwards convinces him ever more of his genius. And that's Art! Anyway, Pitchfork posted an excerpt of an article where Alex relates that a teacher put one of his texts in the class curriculum. Great right? But the text was improperly categorized, so he goes on to rip the professor a new one. I mean, isn't that hilarious all by itself? Why read it at all? I read the thing for camp value. I mean, the camp level of this site is like, over nine thousand (9000!). And well, Alex himself quoted Baudrillard so elegantly: "if you want to make people laugh, it is better not to be funny."
|
|
|
Post by justjustin on Jun 17, 2009 23:49:36 GMT -5
i see what you mean. really, though, he has nothing to learn because the way he writes, his style, reflects his personality-- it's not possible to learn a new one of those. that's just how the guy is.
also, about that article Pitchfork quoted: it's about instinct and how it can be used to discern great games and evaluate consistently without endlessly laboring in search of a perfect grading scale (in short: trust your gut/instinct/feelings). i glazed over the words about his arcade culture article being categorized incorrectly. while it was useful for him when writing, it was not as useful to me when reading.
as for his forums, he bans in accordance with what he deems insulting. he runs his forum like it's his show. hardly the atmosphere around here, for example, where it's simply a gathering spot for people with similar interests. not so at insomnia. there, he has a very specific goal. oftentimes, posters think they're criticizing his words but he'll interpret it as criticizing his character. so he bans. a lot.
sorry to dampen the mood here. i only bother to say all this because i like the articles on his site. he presents perspectives about video games i can't find anywhere else. it's a great resource, too. although incomplete, there are some nice catalogs of games there, especially the ps1, ps2, megadrive and snes categories:
|
|
|
Post by Garamoth on Jun 18, 2009 0:39:36 GMT -5
i see what you mean. really, though, he has nothing to learn because the way he writes, his style, reflects his personality-- it's not possible to learn a new one of those. that's just how the guy is. I disagree. The fact that he is almost universally hated/mocked comes from the reality that he's so completely adamant about being a bastard. Which is the point I was making: he's deluded himself into thinking that any criticism of his style is proof of his genius (now scorn is the argument, and the argument is scorn, as he said himself). If he didn't spend most of the time deriding his audience, maybe he'd actually get some respect... and that's the only truth worth being said on the matter. Neither do I think that having the "personality" of an asshole is somehow a justification for not ever trying to correct it: "Oh never mind him, that's just Jerry, he's an asshole. That's the way he is and we all have to accept him" Oh 21st century! Oh Internet! What else will we hear next! I don't know if anybody noticed, but a lot of what I've written was a actually a pastiche of the great master's own style. Because, yes, you can adapt to new styles. Seriously, that's half the fun of writing. Anyway, enough about boring old me. You want the master at work, don't you? Schopenhauer: "It is not only in the activity of his highest powers that the genius surpasses ordinary people. A man who is unusually well-knit, supple and agile, will perform all his movements with exceptional ease, even with comfort, because he takes a direct pleasure in an activity for which he is particularly well-equipped, and therefore often exercises it without any object. Further, if he is an acrobat or a dancer, not only does he take leaps which other people cannot execute, but he also betrays rare elasticity and agility in those easier steps which others can also perform, and even in ordinary walking. In the same way a man of superior mind will not only produce thoughts and works which could never have come from another; it will not be here alone that he will show his greatness; but as knowledge and thought form a mode of activity natural and easy to him, he will also delight himself in them at all times, and so apprehend small matters which are within the range of other minds, more easily, quickly and correctly than they."
Therefore my writings, if I am indeed a genius, will always be "works of genius" regardless of the subject matter. A genius, by Schopenhauer's definition as well as by anyone else's, is not capable of NOT producing works of genius, just as a cow is not capable of not producing works of cows, and so on. A genius is a genius and a cow is a cow from birth to death -- and that's the end of that.
So, to get back to your question, what I have done so far, in every subject that I have tackled, is tackled them with genius. Some of those subjects may be more important than others (the Videogame Culture essays, for example, are more important than any review I have ever written), so of course my works that deal with them will also have more value. Ultimately, the most valuable thing I will ever write is my second book, again due to the importance of the subject matter.
Not only is the quote from Schopenhauer flimsy at best, but his conclusion from it is that he is a genius and that therefore anything he writes is by definition genius. LOL. Anyway, folks, it's not because some musty old philosopher wrote something that it's not retarded. Yes, indeed much further, almost to the very end (and I'll be arriving at the end any day now). There are posts of mine scattered around this forum, perhaps one or two dozen of them, in which I talk about, or in some cases merely allude to, things Heraclitus and Nietzsche and Baudrillard either did not manage to understand because they couldn't, or simply did not get the chance to. Nietzsche, for example, never managed to completely understand the concept of simulation (nor the problem of the actor, which are closely related), mostly because 19th century technology was not very advanced. No doubt he would have understood everything about it had he lived longer, but he didn't. Baudrillard, on the other hand, understood a lot about simulation, perhaps even everything, but he lacked something (most probably the courage) to draw the ultimate conclusions from it. So what he left us, as Gerry Coulter says, was his "ambivalence" -- but ambivalence is not exactly what one asks for from philosophers, so he ultimately failed in this regard.
I, on the other hand, in contrast to Nietzsche and Baudrillard, understand everything about simulation and have the courage to go to the very end. Indeed, I have so much courage I don't even know what to do with it anymore.
Oh great, now the student has become the master. Darth Vader must be pissing his pants right now. "Fairness", in the way humans use the concept, is fundamentally unfair. Similarly, what humans mean by "unfairness" is the only way that fairness can be defined. I'll get around to explaining all this one day. Whoever cannot understand this will never be able to understand videogames, nor anything else about the universe we live in, for that matter. I love how he's always going to EXPLAIN ALL!!!... but only some other time. Of course, how any of this relates to video games is, as always, dubious at best. Unless you're a philosophy major trying to tie up your studies with your hobbies, I guess. Anyway, I find that defining a term by its opposite is always a sure sign that some vapid philofriendgotry magic trick is about to happen. I can't wait! In conclusion... I admire his total lack of any humility and sense of self-doubt. Besides, I'm finding out that doing what he does is surprisingly fun! Why didn't I think of that before?
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jun 18, 2009 0:52:13 GMT -5
Yeah, he's not a genius. Yes, he is an asshole. Yes, he makes entertainment. Yes, it is smart, but completely self-indulging on his side.
Who knows.
|
|
|
Post by Garamoth on Jun 18, 2009 1:14:38 GMT -5
Aww, come on. What's with this reasonable summary of the situation? Have some fun with it.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jun 18, 2009 1:22:38 GMT -5
Since you're from Canada too, I'll try.
So would we all have been ... BANNED ... by now?
|
|
|
Post by dooz on Jun 18, 2009 7:00:47 GMT -5
lol what a friend
That's all of the brainpower I'm willing to spend on this guy.
|
|
|
Post by justjustin on Jun 18, 2009 10:25:55 GMT -5
lol. I doubt he's looking for respect from his readership. That entire site is his own personal space; he writes for himself and runs the forum for himself. Not others. That's why I don't post there, I have nothing to say that could possibly "further" his work. That's how that entire site functions.
Also: Why would anyone accept him? If he has an asshole personality that's ole Jerry's problem. Maybe if it had been a different time-- in the Twilight Zone-- he would have had a winning personality and smiley nice guy Bill would be the one who needed "correcting." Sometimes people see an undesirable quality in another person and conclude it needs correcting instead of simply not accepting it and moving on. It's not possible to correct a human being, only the things that happen to and around a person.
Regarding his claim about fairness and understanding games: How about when people view a game as fair or unfair? This gets talked about all the time in fighting games. Spamming moves, cheapness, all that. What's fair in that situation? Some say spamming and using glitches is cheating and unfair. Others argue it's in the game so the opponent has the capacity to use those tricks as well, thus it's fair. Many times, players base their criticism/dislike on a game being unfair. Sometimes developers base design decisions on fairness.
There is a massive difference between claiming something like "up is actually down, if you think about it," and "fairness is actually unfairness." the difference being up and down are concrete terms to everyone. It only has one definition and will never change. As for the complexity of fairness and unfairness, while they may be concrete in someone's mind, they are not concrete to everyone. Maybe 10,000 years from now people will live differently and start using fairness differently. I fail to see "philofriendgotry magic" in the latter case, just simple questioning of how nebulous terms are being used.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jun 18, 2009 10:43:20 GMT -5
Holy shit, I went on and read some articles (well, skimmed, they were boring as all hell), and well... Good God, do they ever suck!
Any time there is good writing and a good idea he throws it away with his masturbatory writing practices, and makes you feel like a fool no matter how wrong you know he is. And what the hell is the point of his star rating system? This is a problem on multiple other things as well.
1 star = crap, don't buy it, I have a personal grudge against it 2 star = crap, it sucks, don't buy it 3 star = average, don't buy it, there are better games 4 star = undeniably good game 5 star = crap that I like so buy it, undeniably good game I like so buy it, something I have huge bias for, something that adds one feature other games were missing when they couldn't have had it on their previous hardware (his Advance Wars Days of Ruin review)
What the hell is the point? I don't need to read his stars to understand what he is saying, and they're completely superfluous. If you absolutely need a rating system go for something fun, like "3 somethingwithfriend at the end out of five! I still can't describe things well!" or "3 dead philosophers out of five! Still, nobody cares, and I'm a whackjob!". If anyone has realized this buy now it should be him not me, since he is much better than me.
I want to meet him, to be honest. I'd just like to talk to him, pretend I don't know about his site. Then I'd leave, put on prosthetic and come back months later as a big fan of the site. Then I'd do the same again for a new face, and challenge him to a fighter or shmup, trying to piss him off somehow within the game (beating him, playing retardedly, et cetera). Then I'd leave again, dress in all black, steal him away, and interrogate him to find out all the answers.
Of course, this would be certified by the government as a genuine scientific experiment, to stop superhumans and learn more about them. I'd publish a book called Insomnia.ac : Autistic Children Who Cannot Sleep : The Secrets Behind Super Human Powers, And A True Evolution Of Man : God Is Dead 2 The Ultimate Power : And Other Essays About Offensive Neanderthal Motives Wrapped Up In Philofriend Views To Appear Less Retarded (On Women LOL)
|
|
|
Post by justjustin on Jun 18, 2009 11:30:57 GMT -5
lol. you write so weird, Smithee.
his star rating-- any rating-- offers immediate insight on a person's evaluation. a reader can tell right off the bat if the reviewer liked or disliked something. it adds clarity and it's helpful so i don't have to read every single word to understand a reviewer's conclusion.
ideas can't be thrown away by simply surrounding it with mean words and insults. or maybe they can be, if one observes with a "three strikes you're out" mindset and is uninterested in the first place. very few people seem to have any interest in what he has to say, so it's no wonder people stop reading after the first paragraph-- no matter how many good points he makes-- because he made three disparaging remarks (and conclude nothing he writes has value). i do the same thing myself when i find i'm reading something i'm only half interested in. i wouldn't say an idea is "wasted" or "thrown out" just because i'm not interested, though.
|
|
|
Post by Garamoth on Jun 18, 2009 11:56:01 GMT -5
Yesss, I see you're getting into it Smithee. Fun isn't it? But I think I'll have to stop sometime soon, because you can easily get caught up in this nonsense... plus, I try not to complain on the Internet, as much as I can. lol. I doubt he's looking for respect from his readership. That entire site is his own personal space; he writes for himself and runs the forum for himself. Not others. Well, pretending he doesn't want to be read and is doing it all for himself is part of his romantic persona. I mean, why is he allegedly publishing two books then? Why is he answering questions "for the sake of his readers"? Every writer works partly for himself, but claiming he doesn't care about anything else is getting a bit too lyrical. Regarding his claim about fairness and understanding games: How about when people view a game as fair or unfair? This gets talked about all the time in fighting games. Spamming moves, cheapness, all that. What's fair in that situation? There is a massive difference between claiming something like "up is actually down, if you think about it," and "fairness is actually unfairness." the difference being up and down are concrete terms to everyone. It only has one definition and will never change. As for the complexity of fairness and unfairness, while they may be concrete in someone's mind, they are not concrete to everyone. Maybe 10,000 years from now people will live differently and start using fairness differently. I fail to see "philofriendgotry magic" in the latter case, just simple questioning of how nebulous terms are being used. Actually he's making the statement in the scope of the entire universe, not just fighter games. The problem about his statement is that you can't agree or disagree with nonsense, as he quoted from Wittgenstein himself. Nonsense is just nonsense. I'm saying this because the implicit but obvious conclusion to his argument (which he says later on) is that: "Nature is fair". This is nonsense. Nature is an abstract entity and it doesn't give a crap about anything because it doesn't exist. Fairness is, by definition, something that is defined by humans. Maybe rabbits have their idea of what it is, but they never define it. So fairness is no more or no less than what a specific group consider acceptable behaviour or treatment. You can disagree with their opinion, but you can't find a true definition of "fair" written somewhere in the stars. If you want to salvage his argument, it would be something like: "I believe, as a human, that everybody's definition of "fair" is stupid, because I would define it as the total absence of man-made rules", but that would be giving him the kind of intellectual leeway he never gives to anyone, except himself. Anyway, not only is this kind of stupid in the context of man-made video games, but it's always very quaint to see industrialized intellectuals praising the "fairness of nature". I mean, the whole thing is a bit too "Barbarian living in his mom's basement". So, in essence, the sentence is actually just an excuse to plug more of his Nietzschean nonsense. Hoorah! BANNED.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jun 18, 2009 12:03:23 GMT -5
Life is completely fair. You can be born in a 3rd world country, born with AIDS, and you can be born in a 1st world country, born with super powers. Either way, you could have the other side of the coin. As such, fair is fair, and life is fair. Some things are unfair, but nature is certainly not one of those things! According to what you have to say nature is simply not; in terms of fairness and human influence at least. If something doesn't then it musn't, and so it is completely fair.
To put it into other terms, one could say that if something is not bad then it is good. However, and this was my philosophy for some time, that leaves no room for the middle, and even less room for beyond. So, you must allow for shades of gray, and "super white" (assuming white is good, and black is bad), for it to work on a proper scale.
This brings up the problem, however, that people will say that something is "bad". When something reaches "bad" it doesn't matter how "bad" it is, just as long as it is people will avoid it. "Good" on the other hand, people will chase after depending on what level of "good" it has reached. This can be transposed to fairness and skews any possible argument further, for it all becomes and boils down to subjectives and you cannot have that. Unless of course someone is simply right, which again, is purely subjective.
The final thought of the above paragraph brings up the issue of his audience once again. Should he have a large audience he will be more correct, but if it is smaller (and I imagine it is) he is less. However, if it is just he who completes his audience he can remain at a 100% majority at all times. I imagine this is one of the reasons he bans, and one of the reasons he remains so self-righteous.
|
|
|
Post by derboo on Jun 18, 2009 12:52:33 GMT -5
Holy shit, I went on and read some articles (well, skimmed, they were boring as all hell), and well... Good God, do they ever suck! This. I read the article that was linked in the Culture of Mediocrity thread, and it simply hardly had any entertainment value at all. And after all, that I see as the only redeeming quality that philosophy as a whole can hope to offer. Applying philosophy on video gaming now is definitely an idea that shouldn't be taken too seriously... it should be something people can laugh about, not something that makes them complain and insult. Btw., I just watched Gametrailers "E3 Best 3rd person shooter", and I gotta say, the English pronounciation to "Saboteur" sounds retarded. Either way, you could have the other side of the coin. No, you couldn't, you just didn't, and that's it.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jun 18, 2009 12:56:55 GMT -5
Well, of course. Philosophy and video games can cross over, but only within a game itself. To apply it within a discussion of video games it needs to be a very specific situation or else you come across as a pompous ass. Then again, it is hard to use philosophy without looking like a jerk, I'm sure. I speak very improperly at times, but I say "Saw butt chewer". Well, I didn't think it was funny until I spelled it out. If put into non-words and only phonetica spelled out with standard English sounds applied it would be more like "Suhbahchure" Either way, you could have the other side of the coin. No, you couldn't, you just didn't, and that's it. I'd have to disagree. Just as easily I could have been born without a limb, or born mentally handicapped. I just wasn't, and for that I am glad. Obviously there are statistics towards this, and it is not completely 50:50, but these statistics affect everyone, and are thus all encompassing and fair.
|
|
|
Post by Garamoth on Jun 18, 2009 13:39:45 GMT -5
Ahh, if only I was this inspired for the essay I'm supposed to be writing right now. I probably have a lot more crap to say about the idea of "nature" being fair, which I'll explain one day, if times permits. Anyway, getting back to video games and philosophy. Wisdom gained through philosophy is usually needlessly categorical, unhelpful or just plain nonsensical. Worst of all, philosophers seem to live under the assumption that because they've defined a concept, they can apply it to anything. "Duh, I read Plato's Republic, so now I know everything I need to know about justice in any context." So if you "define" fairness in an abstract manner, I assume that means you know all there is to know about using map-revealing cheats at Starcraft, all about nominating U.S. Supreme Court justices and all about cross-checking at hockey, or any other topic involving fairness, right? The philosopher is a Jack-of-all-trades and master of none, indeed. Fairness is contextual, so it's pretty pointless to define it without the necessary background. Besides, you can't know what fairness is by using cheap logic tricks. In any human affair, reason is nothing without the help of the human heart. You know, it's that thing they call having good judgement. I don't even know where his idea of "nature is fair" is supposed to be going. Always true to Nietzsche, he concludes that "fairness" is a tool used by the weak to put down the strong and that therefore true fairness is the strong kicking each other in the crotch as much as they want (the weak obviously get their share too). This is a very shallow view of nature, since not all of it is about predators/preys. How about symbiotic and parasitic relationships? Or predators that hunt together to capture bigger, stronger prey? Sometimes the "weak" do get the upper hand in nature. In fact, it happens very often. The true rule is that: in nature, anything goes. So doesn't that mean cheating, using exploits and slandering other players is A-ok? Doesn't that mean that if the "weak" redefine fairness and the rules of the game to their liking they're completely justified in doing so? Skill would essentially only be one factor, so the player relying essentially on skill is just handicapping himself. I don't know if anybody has noticed, but while doing my pastiche I haven't insulted anybody personally yet. It's really not that hard. BANNED.
|
|