Yes. And I agree with it up to where such mediums (save for alcohol) are utilized to enhance one's capacity for productivity, actualization, and/or understanding reality (i.e. reference materials). At this time these mediums may then be considered rational tools.
These statements designed to instigate discussion, not finalize it, and my assumption was that supporting elements would be called for eventually.
Is this a fact? Or is this a suggestion that the quintessential Randian objectivist is inherently flawed or contradictory in that they would consider such an irrational pursuit? Or perhaps it is a suggestion that someone who is waxing philosophical could perfectly rationalize this activity, so that they wont have to give up the creature comforts of an irrational world. Please explain.
My premise in this instance is that a life worth living would have no use for tools of fantasy and escapism.
Hypothetically there were no such thing as video games, how would this effect your life? Positively or negatively? And now considered by an objective mind, what is the obvious and correct choice?
Of course. Beyond those basic behaviours, I take hobby in the nightclub industry, participating in online forums, enjoying discussions with friends, reading, and some questionable behaviours that I often refer to as a sort of "trancendental narcicism" that is occassionally accompanied by sadistic practices. Of these, you have my word that I will initiate future threads which may be picked apart as you like. Until then, to keep it focused and simple, I'm interested in focusing on video games and peripheral mediums, if it's not too much trouble.
Your prior illustrations are taking statements of mine and applying them to other mediums. Assuming that these mediums are used for the same reaons that video games are frequently used (enjoyment and escapism), these statements can then be deemed appropriate. How then is this generalization unfair?
Your analogy is flawed in that it does not take into consideration the differences between "encouragement" and "duress."
A "mutually beneficial trade" implies that the value paid is the value provided, and that these values are beneficial. If it is made apparent that video games are an irrational pursuit (unless they are a Rayndian trivia game, obviously [humor]), then it would follow that this is disadvantageous, debilitating, and thus an immoral practice.
Now for some support to my prior statements:
- hijack an individual's senses, disabling their ability to perceive reality through reason.
- encourage participation in an economic system that sets the individual as a financial means to others.
- in the making may involve the sacrifice of the physical and/or mental well being of others (see: EA's treatement of employees).
- are the means to short-term happiness, and thus inferior to long-term happiness as potentially acquired by alternate uses of one's time.
- detract from the productive potential of an individual.
e.g. Using the time to:
- improve one's environment (home improvement, cleaning)
- improve one's self (education, training, exercise)
- deliver higher quality and expediancy of results at work, thereby positively effecting one's financial well being, job security, and career path
- may lend to a form of addiction or dependancy, unnecessarily debilitating the player's capacity to actualize themselves as a heroic being in the objective absolute of reality.
- potentially suggest immoral behaviours and beliefs.