“The Philosophy of Online Games”

For a philosophy to spread widely and be remembered by later generations, a distinctive and resounding name may well be of some help.

What could my philosophy be called by others? Terms like critical philosophy, philosophy of technology, philosophy of history, and pluralism have already been overused; things like philosophy of the stars and philosophy of media also seem insufficiently precise. Suddenly it occurs to me that perhaps it could be called “network game philosophy.” The two words “network” and “game” can indicate the distinctive features and central concerns of my philosophy. Under this heading, almost all the questions of traditional philosophy—ontology, epistemology, axiology, and so on—can be developed.

Moreover, “network game philosophy” is not only related to the words “network” and “game”; it also directly establishes a connection with “network games” in the literal sense. Although I have never played network games, I know what they are about, and I also know their great significance—people today have by no means paid enough attention to this concept, and I dare say that in two hundred years, perhaps sooner, “network games” will become the master of human civilization. Whether in daily life, production and consumption, social relations, political and legal systems, culture and education, creation and invention, all the way to human values and meaning—if human civilization is fortunate enough not to collapse in an ecological crisis, then one day everything will revolve around network games; by then, people will of course easily understand the weight of the term “network game philosophy.”

A flash of inspiration; just speaking offhand. If I say any more, it will turn into 民哲, so I’ll stop here~

Latest Comments 

• physis2008-12-10 15:00:43 Anonymous 59.55.253.29 

  汗 I seriously thought there really ought to be such a discipline as “game philosophy.”

  Gucha

  2008-12-10 15:16:49 

  汗什么？
  Game philosophy does exist, but it seems there still hasn’t been a prominent, iconic great philosopher to take up that banner.
  And the network game philosophy I’m proposing refers to a philosophical character, not merely a specific topic that belongs under philosophy. The “network games” in “network game philosophy” are not just one object of philosophical reflection (besides which there are many others, such as science, technology, life, morality, and so on), but rather the starting point and overall thread of philosophical reflection.
  Of course, any philosophy, if forced to be summarized in just one or two simple words, is always hard to make satisfactory. I was only speaking casually; I’m not really trying to raise any kind of banner.

  physis

  2008-12-10 23:45:45 Anonymous 218.95.114.212 

  Fine, let’s write a whole book together later—we could call it On Game Philosophy, A Philosophical Study of Games, Game Phenomenology, Scanning Games, and so on

  bai

  2008-12-14 23:14:46 Anonymous 124.205.76.241

  “Whether in daily life, production and consumption, social relations, political and legal systems, culture and education, creation and invention, all the way to human values and meaning—if human civilization is fortunate enough not to collapse in an ecological crisis, then one day everything will revolve around network games”
  I’ve seen a similar statement in an article about The Sims before; personally I don’t think it’s very likely. Cultural form can never ultimately stand above cultural content. As long as people do not stop thinking, everything will fundamentally still revolve around thought.
  This is my first time leaving a comment here, and I’m still a newbie who hasn’t even entered philosophy yet; if I’m ignorant of the rules, please forgive me~

• Gucha2008-12-14 23:35:13 

  I have no rules here~ Welcome to throw bricks at me; if you throw them hard enough, I’ll treat you to a meal～

  Your view is very typical, but the moment my philosophy of technology or philosophy of media gets going, it has to overturn this way of thinking in terms of your dichotomy between “cultural form” and “cultural content.” Of course, this is not my own invention; the famous saying of McLuhan, “the medium is the message,” means exactly this—media is by no means merely a container for carrying information; it is itself information, itself “content.”
  For example, the emergence of writing, the emergence of paper, the emergence of printing, and so on—these can be said to be carriers of thought, but not only that; their appearance also profoundly changes the way people think, and ultimately changes the content of thought.
  For any individual, of course, his thought has an independent personality; if he is a free thinker, he should let other things revolve around his own thought. You can say that. But culture as a whole is different when viewed historically and overall. You say “cultural content”—where exactly is cultural content? If you strip away the formal things like a society’s rites and etiquette, ways of life, social institutions, and modes of interaction, where are you going to find “content” again? Where are you going to find “thought”? If thought is not presented through carriers such as speech, handwritten manuscripts, printed books, web pages, and so on, where are you going to discuss the “thought content” of a given culture?
  Your thoughts may strive to become independent, but no one’s thoughts can escape the historical and social milieu in which he finds himself—for us today, thought is always carried on and expressed through language. So where does “language” come from? Does a person, upon being born, do nothing and somehow learn language out of thin air? Of course not! A person must, within some specific cultural environment, through the practice of life and in actual processes of interaction and operation, learn the vocabulary and concepts necessary for thinking. Can the meanings of the vocabulary understood by a child who grows up hunting in a jungle tribe be the same as those understood by a child who grows up playing network games? Can their ways of thinking be the same?

• Gucha2008-12-14 23:53:44

  In addition, the whole of culture revolving around “games” is by no means without precedent.
  When people today look at ancient Greek civilization, you may think that Greek thought was so great that it must have been the center of Greek culture. But that is only the judgment of later generations like us. The “center” around which the whole culture of ancient Greece revolved was not Athens or Plato’s Academy, but “Olympia”! What was Olympia for? The Olympic Games! What are the Olympic Games? A game!
  The whole of ancient Greek culture was in essence condensed around the Olympic game; its calendar (the Olympic calendar), religion, values (the pursuit of excellence), national cohesion, ways of life, and so on and so forth all converged into the game of the Olympics (and the games of other city-states).
  When I say that future society will revolve around network games, I am not pessimistically thinking that future thought will decline. Quite the opposite: I believe thought may still once again display a grandeur like that of ancient Greece.

• bai2008-12-15 08:04:19 Anonymous 124.205.76.241 

  Uh… well~~ I wasn’t trying to deny the importance of external form; I admit that form is indeed important. I just think that, just as in today’s economic theory there is a revolution every thirty years, changes in external forms will become faster and faster. I seem to remember seeing something similar in A Global History, something like “history is developing at an accelerating pace.” In short, external forms like these change very often, but the problems they change in order to solve are always essentially the same, such as “how can people live better,” and so on. Uh… I think that should be many people’s view as well; perhaps the center I’m talking about is too broad.
  In any case, I really can’t imagine taking network games as the “center around which everything revolves.” In the world today, according to your view, what is it revolving around? The economic crisis? YouTube? Or…?

• Gucha2008-12-15 10:59:37 

  How could the problems to be solved remain unchanged? At most, these problems remain unchanged in form, but in content they are precisely changing along with it. Of course, if you are talking about the great philosophical problems, then yes, they are always lagging behind fashion. But the issue is, is philosophy the core of culture? No—it never has been, so don’t overestimate the status of philosophy! Many cultures simply have no philosophy at all, and yet they still develop and change.
  Take a question like “how can people live better.” In terms of its form, it really hasn’t changed much from ancient times to the present. But in substance, what does “people” refer to? What counts as “better”? What kind of answer is this question seeking? … A question like this, when placed in the minds of people from decades ago and in the minds of people today, will not be understood or thought about in exactly the same way.
  What is the world revolving around now? I wrote long ago that today’s culture is a “culture of mass media,” with mass media represented by television having become the center of this world. You can refer to my article “The Globalization of Media Culture” http://epr.ycool.com/post.2628692.html

• Gucha2008-12-15 11:08:28

  If you insist on speaking in terms of form, then tell me: what is the difference between cultural change and cultural difference? If you put it that way, then all cultures don’t differ all that much. One culture is agricultural, another is pastoral; according to your view, the question “how should people eat” is unchanging, so do pastoral and agrarian cultures have no real difference? One culture believes in primitive religion, another believes in Christianity; then according to your view, the question “what should people believe in” is the same, so do different religions also have no real difference? … Then how are you going to talk about “culture”? You can’t talk about it at all!

• bai2008-12-15 17:37:48 Anonymous 124.205.77.191

  Mm, so I was wondering whether the question I raised was “too broad.” Now I understand what you mean. I still look forward to you saying more in detail about the network game issue~
  I think there are major problems with the way China currently treats the issue of network games (at least for someone like me who has played them). There is too much demonization and too many untrue reports. That so-called “rehabilitation camp for internet-addicted youths,” in my view, is basically a violent display of patriarchy and a trampling of the human rights of young people (it has a bit of a Battle Royale feel to it…). In any case, thank you for explaining all this at such length; I’ve gained quite a lot

• Passerby2009-02-07 00:00:28 Anonymous 119.120.122.68

  I occasionally thought of the term “network game philosophy,” and when I searched on Baidu, I came here first, haha

• Passerby2009-02-07 00:11:31 Anonymous 119.120.122.68

  So-called great minds think alike, haha

• Shitou2009-11-14 19:29:01 Anonymous 123.112.128.179

  Today, the word “game philosophy” suddenly popped into my head. I googled it, and sure enough, someone has already been exploring this proposition.
  Actually, the needs at the spiritual level are just a matter of how they are satisfied; the issue is the carrier. The goal is to be satisfied. So the pleasure brought by ten million in real life is, in essence, exactly the same as what is obtained in a virtual world.

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.