Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LordHappycat

Can Second Life be even considered a "Game"?

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1329 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Perrie Juran wrote:

(Not directed specifically to you Phil, just tagged out of convenience).

Ever since
Th3Unkn0wn
necro'd and then deserted this thread I've been following the discussion.  And I do wonder what the point of all this is, and especially why some folks are so insistent that SL is
not
a game.

I do not consider SL a game though I acknowledge that there are some people who all they do is play games in SL.

To me personally Second Life is simply a Virtual World.  I log in and via my Avatar I interact with and have relationships with other individuals via their Avatars in the Second Life world.  To me that is not a game.

 

 

There doesn't need to be a point beyond the enjoyment of the dialectics of the debate.

Whether that can be said to be a game or not is of course moot. But I would think the enjoyment of the discourse would make it a form of play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is certainly true that there are lots of areas of study within philosophy and differing sides within each area, but no more so than science.

But yes to bring the conversation back on topic, it is also well worth reading Wittgenstein's notion of "family resemblence" since he used the word "game" as the primary example of such a thing.

Here is the text and you can find the discussion on page 19, paragraphs 65-71:

http://danielwharris.com/teaching/394/WittgensteinInvestigations.pdf

Here's also a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Bringing this up once again is beating a dead horse.  Gamers will never convince non gamers that SL is a game and non gamers will never convince gamers that it isn't. 

To me it's simple.  SL is a virtual world where you can play games, BUT YOU DON"T ALWAYS. 

What I and  many of us do in the virtual world is not a game. For those that say we all play characters, I disagree. I am my RL self in SL and my avatar is just that, a representation of myself in world.

Those of us like myself don't 'play' SL.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Aethelwine wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:

(Not directed specifically to you Phil, just tagged out of convenience).

Ever since
Th3Unkn0wn
necro'd and then deserted this thread I've been following the discussion.  And I do wonder what the point of all this is, and especially why some folks are so insistent that SL is
not
a game.

I do not consider SL a game though I acknowledge that there are some people who all they do is play games in SL.

To me personally Second Life is simply a Virtual World.  I log in and via my Avatar I interact with and have relationships with other individuals via their Avatars in the Second Life world.  To me that is not a game.

 

 

There doesn't need to be a point beyond the enjoyment of the dialectics of the debate.

Whether that can be said to be a game or not is of course moot. But I would think the enjoyment of the discourse would make it a form of play.

Debate simply for the sake of debate?

I guess we could make a game of it.  I doubt if there has ever been a Forum who did not have participants who made an art form out of it.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nalytha wrote:


Pamela Galli wrote:

I just have never heard any full time content ccreator I know say they make a living playing a video game, even if our work is something we used to do for fun. (But the same is true when I was teaching, which was far more fun and more difficult.)

The guy who wears the Mickey Mouse costume at Disneyland is working, not playing.

Well, here are two examples I can find offhand. I would have to dig a bit deeper to find some of the other videos and articles where I have heard this mentioned. 

 

 


Well assuming the business people in those videos, unlike the ones I know personally, considered themselves "playing a video game" (I did not listen to the videos, but of course have seen 2.0 before), that might account for neither of them being in business anymore. Maybe they were in fact playing. The businesses that hang in there year after year, with declining concurrency, declining prices, brutal competition, having their work copied, having to learn new technology (ie mesh) -- trust me no one is playing and it would be bizarre to hear them say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:


Nalytha wrote:

Phil, my understanding of the English language is quite fine, I assure you. I am telling you that I PLAY Second Life. I don't know or care what you do, but I PLAY it. I play Second Life, like I play the Sims -- to dress up. I play Second Life like I play WoW -- to RP, I play Second Life like I play Minecraft -- to create. All of those are "platforms" to engage in whatever it is I wish to do, but in all examples, I am in fact playing. 

 

We can argue about platforms all day. Every game uses a platform to achieve the outcome desired. So does Second Life. Because so much of the content is character made, instead of by a creator as the majority of games are, it may feel like there is no game at all. However, the game is created by the users. You are right, Second Life is a platform because that's mostly all the creators gave us (which is grea!).
That doesn't mean it's ONLY a platform.  

The bolded statement is inherently false. Second Life in and of itself is ONLY a platform. The Sims inside the platform are where the various activities take place. Simply because there are some RP sims does not make SL as a whole a "game." SL as a whole is nothing more than a virtual world platform. Plain and simple.

Put it this way.. i play  D&D every Saturday night in my living room. Does that make my living room a game room? Perhaps on Saturday nights it is, but that does not make my house a game room. 

Second Life is the Earth, the Sim is my house and my RP parcel is D&D around the table on Saturday nights. Does that make more sense?

If Second LIfe is
only
a platform then why do the users have to do things that would be utterly idiotic for a simple creativity program?
Woah woah woah.. Hold up there. I never said it was a creativity platform. I said it was a platform. If you want to create, cool. If not, also cool. Do what you like. Remember the old tag line, "Your world, Your imagination"? You can do whatsoever you like
IN
SL.. That is an important word, in. You aren't playing CoD, WoW or EverQuest. You are interacting or maybe not interacting with people from around the globe in a virtual environment. It is the first and most fleshed out virtual world there is. To label it simply a "game" is sad.
Before you can do anything in Second Life you need to create an account, rezz out as an avatar and then drag that avatar around when you're doing completely non-avatar-related things. You can't even upload a texture without having an avatar clunking around a simulator. Why, if it's "only a platform"?

 

Simple answer, because that's how LL designed it.  They decided that each user should have something to represent them in the platform world. I would be willing to bet the very very first designers just had a ball or cube to represent them.

The avatar is the digital representation of your unique UUiD. It can be anything.. I have seen cubes. Simple cubes, just sitting in a sandbox building a house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Aethelwine wrote:


An Existentialist view would hold that it is the individual that is the source of meaning, not culture or tradition. 

Not necessarily. The individual freely chooses ultimate meaning, but is not necessarily himself the source. Kierkegaard was the first Existentialist, and chose to believe in the God of the Bible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:


Aethelwine wrote:


An Existentialist view would hold that it is the individual that is the source of meaning, not culture or tradition. 

Not necessarily. The individual freely chooses ultimate meaning, but is not necessarily himself the source. Kierkegaard was the first Existentialist, and chose to believe in the God of the Bible. 

He believed in God on his own terms though, certainly not based on those of the Church or tradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Aethelwine wrote:


Pamela Galli wrote:


Aethelwine wrote:


An Existentialist view would hold that it is the individual that is the source of meaning, not culture or tradition. 

Not necessarily. The individual freely chooses ultimate meaning, but is not necessarily himself the source. Kierkegaard was the first Existentialist, and chose to believe in the God of the Bible. 

He believed in God on his own terms though, certainly not based on those of the Church or tradition.

I said the Bible, not the Church, not tradition. Not the same as "on his own terms" either. (See also: Paul Tillich.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ilithios Liebknecht wrote:

It is certainly true that there are lots of areas of study within philosophy and differing sides within each area, but no more so than science.

But yes to bring the conversation back on topic, it is also well worth reading Wittgenstein's notion of "family resemblence" since he used the word "game" as the primary example of such a thing.

Here is the text and you can find the discussion on page 19, paragraphs 65-71:

Here's also a wikipedia page:

Interesting and also the examples used of games, such as ring-a-ring-a-roses and throwing a ball against a wall and catching it are worth considering as examples of games that don't fit the narrow definitions that people wanting to argue SL is not a game would exclude as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Aethelwine wrote:


Pamela Galli wrote:


Aethelwine wrote:


An Existentialist view would hold that it is the individual that is the source of meaning, not culture or tradition. 

Not necessarily. The individual freely chooses ultimate meaning, but is not necessarily himself the source. Kierkegaard was the first Existentialist, and chose to believe in the God of the Bible. 

He believed in God on his own terms though, certainly not based on those of the Church or tradition.

Individuals only freely choose ultimate meaning if they have free will. I'm not convinced we do!

And to believe in a God on your own terms just seems like a cop out to me. If I'm going to believe in a God on my own terms, I'm not going to believe in him at all (and I don't). I prefer not to set the terms, primarily because I don't know what the hell I'm doing. I'll let the evidence set the terms, which of course requires that I believe the evidence.

I'm doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ilithios Liebknecht wrote:


 

If philosophy was the same, we wouldn't have people holding such a wide spectrum of different philosophies. One would be proven to be the most "logical." This simply isn't the case. 

Oh but this
is
very much the case with philosophy as much as it is with science. In philosophy, as with science, progress is constantly being made, older theories being discarded in favor of better ones. While, just like in science, there are often debates, people who follow philosophy don't hold all that wide a spectrum of beliefs.

The problem truly arises when people use the term "philosophy" to mean something it does not mean. For example, you say "we wouldn't have people holding such a wide spectrum of different philosophies.' but this sentence makes no sense. There is no such thing as a philosophy. You would not say people hold a wide spectrum of sciences would you? No, because people don't have their own science just like people don't have their own philosophy. Science and philosophy are areas of study and their associated methods, not belief systems in and of themselves.

People do, of course, say things like that, and in that case they are just using the word "philosophy" as a synonym for "belief" but that is no more related to the discipline of philosophy than a "bank" where you keep your money is related to the "bank" of a river.

People are often unaware of the advances of philosophy because they are not well reported on, but they most certainly do exist and just because people are unaware of them and therefore believe ludicrous things anyway does not mean that philosophy is more loose; it means people aren't using it.

If there's not a wide spectrum of philosophies, tell Wikipedia (and those disagreeing about whether SL is a game). They list eastern, western and a few schools. The phrase "personal philosophy" has been around for quite some time, perhaps derided by "true philosophers" as an idication that the holder of the personal philosophy is out of his/her depth. I think they're all on thin ice.

I understand the value of creating frameworks for thinking about things, but philosophy tries to do so much more, and it's simply not equipped to do that. Could it be that most people are unaware of the advances in philosophy because there haven't been many? It seems to me that philosophers rummage around in the discoveries of science to find anything that looks like it might support their particular way of seeing things, and then declare success.

I'm content to see where the evidence leads, understanding that the discovery of that evidence will be fraught with error and that I'll have to change my mind often along the way. It's quite possible that everything I know is wrong. I don't recall my philosophy professors admitting to that, certainly they were not being excited by that possibility.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Aethelwine wrote:


Ilithios Liebknecht wrote:

It is certainly true that there are lots of areas of study within philosophy and differing sides within each area, but no more so than science.

But yes to bring the conversation back on topic, it is also well worth reading Wittgenstein's notion of "family resemblence" since he used the word "game" as the primary example of such a thing.

Here is the text and you can find the discussion on page 19, paragraphs 65-71:

Here's also a wikipedia page:

Interesting and also the examples used of games, such as ring-a-ring-a-roses and throwing a ball against a wall and catching it are worth considering as examples of games that don't fit the narrow definitions that people wanting to argue SL is not a game would exclude as well.

I think my favorite definition of "game" is when I don't take something as seriously as you think I should.

;-).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


I'm content to see where the evidence leads, understanding that the discovery of that evidence will be fraught with error and that I'll have to change my mind often along the way. It's quite possible that everything I know is wrong. I don't recall my philosophy professors admitting to that, certainly they were not being excited by that possibility.

 

Much of what you said resounds greatly with me, but this statement... perfect! I don't find many people, especially on the internet, who are capable of admiting that everything they currently "know" may in fact be wrong. It's how I live my life as well. It makes these sort of discussions (I prefer this term over debates) much more enjoyable for me. Knowing that I can in fact be wrong, opens my ears (eyes) to the possibility that someone else may be right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


Ilithios Liebknecht wrote:


 

If philosophy was the same, we wouldn't have people holding such a wide spectrum of different philosophies. One would be proven to be the most "logical." This simply isn't the case. 

Oh but this
is
very much the case with philosophy as much as it is with science. In philosophy, as with science, progress is constantly being made, older theories being discarded in favor of better ones. While, just like in science, there are often debates, people who follow philosophy don't hold all that wide a spectrum of beliefs.

The problem truly arises when people use the term "philosophy" to mean something it does not mean. For example, you say "we wouldn't have people holding such a wide spectrum of different philosophies.' but this sentence makes no sense. There is no such thing as a philosophy. You would not say people hold a wide spectrum of sciences would you? No, because people don't have their own science just like people don't have their own philosophy. Science and philosophy are areas of study and their associated methods, not belief systems in and of themselves.

People do, of course, say things like that, and in that case they are just using the word "philosophy" as a synonym for "belief" but that is no more related to the discipline of philosophy than a "bank" where you keep your money is related to the "bank" of a river.

People are often unaware of the advances of philosophy because they are not well reported on, but they most certainly do exist and just because people are unaware of them and therefore believe ludicrous things anyway does not mean that philosophy is more loose; it means people aren't using it.

 

I'm content to see where the evidence leads, understanding that the discovery of that evidence will be fraught with error and that I'll have to change my mind often along the way. It's quite possible that everything I know is wrong. I don't recall my philosophy professors admitting to that, certainly they were not being excited by that possibility.

 

If you read any of Daniel Kahneman's Nobel Prize winning Thinking Fast and Slow, you will come away with one firm conviction: Most of us make decisions with about as much thought and consideration of  information as a pill bug does. Seriously. Even experts in their field, with all the data available to them, will make decisions based on the flimsiest of whims and biases. 

It is a very important book that everyone should read. A real game changer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


Aethelwine wrote:


Pamela Galli wrote:


Aethelwine wrote:


An Existentialist view would hold that it is the individual that is the source of meaning, not culture or tradition. 

Not necessarily. The individual freely chooses ultimate meaning, but is not necessarily himself the source. Kierkegaard was the first Existentialist, and chose to believe in the God of the Bible. 

He believed in God on his own terms though, certainly not based on those of the Church or tradition.

Individuals only freely choose ultimate meaning if they have free will. I'm not convinced we do!

And to believe in a God on your own terms just seems like a cop out to me. If I'm going to believe in a God on my own terms, I'm not going to believe in him at all (and I don't).
I prefer not to set the terms, primarily because I don't know what the hell I'm doing. I'll let the evidence set the terms, which of course requires that I believe the evidence.

I'm doomed.

Re bolded: Bingo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Pamela Galli wrote:

If you read any of Daniel Kahneman's Nobel Prize winning Thinking Fast and Slow, you will come away with one firm conviction: Most of us make decisions with about as much thought and consideration of  information as a pill bug does. Seriously. Even experts in their field, with all the data available to them, will make decisions based on the flimsiest of whims and biases. 

It is a very important book that everyone should read. A real game changer. 

I see this every day. I try to catch myself at it, and do. Thanks for the book recommendation, Pamela.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


Pamela Galli wrote:

If you read any of Daniel Kahneman's Nobel Prize winning Thinking Fast and Slow, you will come away with one firm conviction: Most of us make decisions with about as much thought and consideration of  information as a pill bug does. Seriously. Even experts in their field, with all the data available to them, will make decisions based on the flimsiest of whims and biases. 

It is a very important book that everyone should read. A real game changer. 

I see this every day. I try to catch myself at it, and do. Thanks for the book recommendation, Pamela.

Well if you read it, let me know. I have evangelized this incredibly important book to everyone I know, to zero effect, and I have met exactly one person who has read it. It is truly jaw dropping and mind blowing. It is also very entertaining and accessible. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/thinking-fast-and-slow-by-daniel-kahneman-book-review.html?_r=0

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

 Bringing this up once again is beating a dead horse.  Gamers will
never
convince non gamers that SL is a game and non gamers will
never
convince gamers that it isn't. 

To me it's simple.  SL is a virtual world where you can play games, BUT YOU DON"T ALWAYS. 

What I and  many of us do in the virtual world is not a game. For those that say we all play characters, I disagree. I am my RL self in SL and
my avatar is just that, a representation of myself in world.

Those of us like myself don't 'play' SL.

 

Why do you have a representation of yourself in a virtual world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:



If Second LIfe is
only
a platform then why do the users have to do things that would be utterly idiotic for a simple creativity program?
Woah woah woah.. Hold up there. I never said it was a creativity platform. I said it was a platform. If you want to create, cool. If not, also cool. Do what you like. Remember the old tag line, "Your world, Your imagination"? You can do whatsoever you like
IN
SL.. That is an important word, in. You aren't playing CoD, WoW or EverQuest. You are interacting or maybe not interacting with people from around the globe in a virtual environment. It is the first and most fleshed out virtual world there is. To label it simply a "game" is sad.
Before you can do anything in Second Life you need to create an account, rezz out as an avatar and then drag that avatar around when you're doing completely non-avatar-related things. You can't even upload a texture without having an avatar clunking around a simulator. Why, if it's "only a platform"?

 

Simple answer, because that's how LL designed it. 
They decided that each user should have something to represent them in the platform world. I would be willing to bet the very very first designers just had a ball or cube to represent them.

The avatar is the digital representation of your unique UUiD. It can be anything.. I have seen cubes. Simple cubes, just sitting in a sandbox building a house.

And why does your UUID need a digital representation at all?

They probably designed it that way because it was designed as a game. In the initial version of LindenWorld, you terraformed by throwing grenades. The original avatars, far from being spheres or cubes, were complete humanoids made of prims and had helmets, visors and jetpacks for flying. http://secondlife.wikia.com/wiki/Primitar

In the 2003-2005 era there was much more of an explicit "game-ness." You were paid directly by Linden Lab for the "dwell" (old name for traffic) on your region. The same basic architecture is still used. Over time it became less explicitly "game-like" but there are still elements of game-ness that wouldn't be there if it wasn't originally designed as something almost everyone would accept as a game.

One grain of sand isn't a heap; a million grains of sand in a pile is a heap. It's effectively impossible to find a point that X grains of sand constitutes a heap and x-1 grains of sand doesn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nalytha wrote:

I'm sorry, but what you are saying is not making sense to me. It sounds like what you are saying is that anyone who says Second Life is nothing more than a virtual reality platform inherently is speaking the truth. Anything someone says to argue that Second Life is a game can only be using a supposition or hypothesis, and is therefore automatically discredited.

 

Because, a lot of reasons have been given for why Second Life is not a game. And a lot of reasons have been given for why Second Life is a game. And even some concede that it is a game for some, while not others. But what it sounds like you are saying is any argument for Second Life being a game is weak and not worthy of countering.

what I was meaning is that when a person makes a performative argument then when the counter-example comes in the descriptive form then we can't say the counter-example does not invalidate our argument, just bc is not given in the performative form

to counter the counter-example then we need to show it in the descriptive form. We are the one making the claims. Not them. basically they dont have to proof a fact

+

the rules of logic are also about precedence. A descriptive takes precedence over a performative

i think that sometimes when we chatting about this topic (and similars) then we can sometimes get our precedences out of order. A explicable descriptive describes/details a fact. A performative never takes precedence over a explicable descriptive

put the statements in order of precedence

SL is a virtual world. Battlefield 4 is a game. As descriptives then independently they are of equal precedence

+

statement: B4 is a virtual world

reasoning: bc the viewable/interactive objects are consistent with a world. There are people in it. People can act within according to the rules/regs/constraints of the B4 world. Acting within the rules/regs/constraints is consistent with a world, etc

statement: B4 is a game. SL is a game

reasoning: bc SL shares a lot of similarities with B4

apply logic: The similarities are there bc B4 is a subset of a virtual world. SL is the superset of a virtual world

basically when we are mindful of the order of precedence then stuff can begin to make sense

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


Aethelwine wrote:


Pamela Galli wrote:


Aethelwine wrote:


An Existentialist view would hold that it is the individual that is the source of meaning, not culture or tradition. 

Not necessarily. The individual freely chooses ultimate meaning, but is not necessarily himself the source. Kierkegaard was the first Existentialist, and chose to believe in the God of the Bible. 

He believed in God on his own terms though, certainly not based on those of the Church or tradition.

Individuals only freely choose ultimate meaning if they have free will. I'm not convinced we do!

And to believe in a God on your own terms just seems like a cop out to me. If I'm going to believe in a God on my own terms, I'm not going to believe in him at all (and I don't). I prefer not to set the terms, primarily because I don't know what the hell I'm doing. I'll let the evidence set the terms, which of course requires that I believe the evidence.

I'm doomed.

"on his own terms" was not really the right way of putting it... based on individual experience is more accurate. For Kierkergaard decisions based on evidence are scientific not religious. A religious experience is mystical, personal and requires doubt to be able to make the leap of faith to believing that is the essence of religion.

Wikipedia explains it better than my verbal fumbling...

The leap of faith is his conception of how an individual would believe in God or how a person would act in love. Faith is not a decision based on evidence that, say, certain beliefs about God are true or a certain person is worthy of love. No such evidence could ever be enough to completely justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. Kierkegaard thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous. For example, it takes no faith to believe that a pencil or a table exists, when one is looking at it and touching it. In the same way, to believe or have faith in God is to know that one has no perceptual or any other access to God, and yet still has faith in God. Kierkegaard writes, "doubt is conquered by faith, just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard#Philosophy_and_theology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Aethelwine wrote:

Wikipedia explains it better than my verbal fumbling...

The
is his conception of how an individual would believe in God or how a person would act in love. Faith is not a decision based on evidence that, say, certain beliefs about God are true or a certain person is worthy of love. No such evidence could ever be enough to completely justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. Kierkegaard thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous. For example, it takes no faith to believe that a pencil or a table exists, when one is looking at it and touching it. In the same way, to believe or have faith in God is to know that one has no perceptual or any other access to God, and yet still has faith in God. Kierkegaard writes, "doubt is conquered by faith, just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world".


Well Aeth, Wikipedia's explanation makes me wonder if Kierkegaard was just being fooled by his own neurochemistry. Timothy Leary's Marsh Chapel experiments with psilocybin, along with research on the effects of oxytocin and countless other experiments, suggest that love and spiritual awakenings are neurochemistry. We can't fault Kierkegaard for not knowing this, but that might color our understanding of his "understanding" of things.

And this is why I am less than impressed by religion and philosophy. They both often explain things by just making stuff up. Science is a lot harder on itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


Aethelwine wrote:

Wikipedia explains it better than my verbal fumbling...

The
is his conception of how an individual would believe in God or how a person would act in love. Faith is not a decision based on evidence that, say, certain beliefs about God are true or a certain person is worthy of love. No such evidence could ever be enough to completely justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. Kierkegaard thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous. For example, it takes no faith to believe that a pencil or a table exists, when one is looking at it and touching it. In the same way, to believe or have faith in God is to know that one has no perceptual or any other access to God, and yet still has faith in God. Kierkegaard writes, "doubt is conquered by faith, just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world".


Well Aeth, Wikipedia's explanation makes me wonder if Kierkegaard was just being fooled by his own neurochemistry. Timothy Leary's
with psilocybin, along with research on the effects of oxytocin and countless other experiments, suggest that love and spiritual awakenings are neurochemistry. We can't fault Kierkegaard for not knowing this, but that might color our understanding of his "understanding" of things.

And this is why I am less than impressed by religion and philosophy. They both often explain things by just making stuff up. Science is a lot harder on itself.

Until the language of Neurochemistry can evoke the same sort of emotional responses as poetry, it is missing out on some of the meaning. Its language and analysis incomplete. Its function and the type of information it conveys different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1329 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...