Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Video Games are Irrational

Rate this topic


xeper
 Share

Recommended Posts

Video games:

- 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.

- 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Video games:- 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.

- 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.

Movies:

- 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).

[...]

Alchohol:

- hijack an individual's senses, disabling their ability to perceive reality through reason.

[...]

Books:

[...]

The Internet:

[...]

Do you see my point?

These statments are unsupported and not linked to any facts involving video games and thus are easily ported to almost any form of sensory stimulus.

Aside from that:

Have you even considered the fact that a perfectly rational person may consider a video game an enjoyable means to recreation?

Have you considered the fact that the rational mind is not merely a means by which to run the awesome machinery we call our bodies but is also an end in and of itself; and that "living" is not merely the set of actions that are required to keep our bodies running but is a whole process that includes the recognition and the enjoyment of the fact that life is worth living?

I play many types of games, and often, and it is, at this juncture in my life, one of the most enjoyable things I do along side and in direct compliment to my work, my writings here, and the people in my life.

Do you only work, sleep, and eat? If not, name anything that you do other than those mentioned and I can say the same sorts of things about that.

Granted, there are those who allow sensory stimulus and the like (again, type here really doesn't matter) to run their lives and adversley affect their daily life. However, I don't think your statements here are adressing the topic of "video games" to that effect but are rather, attacking the concept of them as a whole. Which, as I illistrated above, is slightly unfair.

- encourage participation in an economic system that sets the individual as a financial means to others.
I must say that this stood out as blatanly wrong to me. When was the last time some one held a gun to your head and said, "Buy this game so I can be rich"? Nobody forces people to buy video games, and as long as people buy them voluntarily they are engaging in one of the most moral actions available to man, mutually beneficial trade.

Is this a joke?

I thought I'd give xeper the benefit of the doubt. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- 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.

He's obviously never killed Diablo on Nightmare level. :)

Yea, yea, I know, I ain't [expletive deleted] until I've killed him on Hell level...I'm working on it. :worry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Movies:

- 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).

[...]

Alchohol:

- hijack an individual's senses, disabling their ability to perceive reality through reason.

[...]

Books:

[...]

The Internet:

[...]

Do you see my point?

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 statments are unsupported and not linked to any facts involving video games and thus are easily ported to almost any form of sensory stimulus.
These statements designed to instigate discussion, not finalize it, and my assumption was that supporting elements would be called for eventually.

Aside from that:

Have you even considered the fact that a perfectly rational person may consider a video game an enjoyable means to recreation?

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.

Have you considered the fact that the rational mind is not merely a means by which to run the awesome machinery we call our bodies but is also an end in and of itself; and that "living" is not merely the set of actions that are required to keep our bodies running but is a whole process that includes the recognition and the enjoyment of the fact that life is worth living?
My premise in this instance is that a life worth living would have no use for tools of fantasy and escapism.

I play many types of games, and often, and it is, at this juncture in my life, one of the most enjoyable things I do along side and in direct compliment to my work, my writings here, and the people in my life.

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?

Do you only work, sleep, and eat? If not, name anything that you do other than those mentioned and I can say the same sorts of things about that.
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.

Granted, there are those who allow sensory stimulus and the like (again, type here really doesn't matter) to run their lives and adversley affect their daily life. However, I don't think your statements here are adressing the topic of "video games" to that effect but are rather, attacking the concept of them as a whole. Which, as I illistrated above, is slightly unfair.

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?

I must say that this ["encourage participation in an economic system that sets the individual as a financial means to others."]stood out as blatanly wrong to me. When was the last time some one held a gun to your head and said, "Buy this game so I can be rich"?

Your analogy is flawed in that it does not take into consideration the differences between "encouragement" and "duress."

Nobody forces people to buy video games, and as long as people buy them voluntarily they are engaging in one of the most moral actions available to man, mutually beneficial trade.
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.

I thought I'd give xeper the benefit of the doubt. :-)

A pleasure. :worry:

Now for some support to my prior statements:

- hijack an individual's senses, disabling their ability to perceive reality through reason.

- http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/ful...1/7509/122?ehom

- 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).

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_industry

- http://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/

- http://games.slashdot.org/games/04/11/11/0...l?tid=98&tid=10

- 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

etc.

- 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.

- http://www.mediafamily.org/facts/facts_gameaddiction.shtml

- http://www.wired.com/news/holidays/0,1882,48479,00.html

- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1036088.stm

- http://news.com.com/2100-1040-881673.html

- potentially suggest immoral behaviours and beliefs.

- http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=2356

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is hilarious.

I guess chess is a "good" game to play in your spare time . . . unless its done on a computer!

That would be totally irational!

Why do Objectivist "newbs"(my guess) tend to go waaaay overboard when they try to apply Objectivism to their life?

Edited by Al Kufr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now for some support to my prior statements:

- hijack an individual's senses, disabling their ability to perceive reality through reason.

- http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/ful...1/7509/122?ehom

The summary from the article you quote above;

On balance, given that video game playing is highly prevalent among children and adolescents in industrialised countries, there is little evidence that moderate frequency of play has serious acute adverse effects from moderate play. Adverse effects, when they occur, tend to be relatively minor and temporary, resolving spontaneously with decreased frequency of play. More evidence is needed on excessive play and on defining what constitutes excess in the first place. There should also be long term studies of the course of video game addiction.
I'd hardly call that a supporting statement.

- are the means to short-term happiness, and thus inferior to long-term happiness as potentially acquired by alternate uses of one's time.

This does not make an activity immoral. Actually acquired short term happiness can definitely have more value that potential long term hapiness, contextually speaking of course. Nothing about Objectivism states "Thou shalt never seek to enjoy any endeavors that may involve only short term happiness." I would also argue that there is no evidence to suggest that the enjoyment of the accomplishment of beating or mastering a video game is necessarily a short term happiness. To this day I'm still satisfied by the thought of beating Diablo on Nightmare level. The bulk of the game is a reinforcement of the idea that one man can conquer great evil and profit from it along the way.

- detract from the productive potential of an individual.

Again, there is no commandment in Objectivism that states; "Thou shalt spend every waking moment in a productive capacity, never stopping to relax or engage in leisurely activities." except for the fact that leisurely activities CAN BE productive by virtue of their ability to reduce stress and allow for greater LONG TERM productivity.

- 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.

Or may not. No proof of irrationality there.

- potentially suggest immoral behaviours and beliefs.

Or not. No proof of irraitonality there.

These statements designed to instigate discussion, not finalize it, and my assumption was that supporting elements would be called for eventually.

Actually it was your title (Video Games are Irrational) that lends one to believe you have "finalized" your conclusion on the matter. I can alter the title if you like to indicate that you actually intend this to be a discussion or a debate.

[Edit - Grammar - RC]

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do Objectivist "newbs"(my guess) tend to go waaaay overboard when they try to apply Objectivism to their life?

Objectivism as a philosophy embraces reality and reason as absolutes, and condemns as irrational any concession to faith or emotionalism. It follows then that there are absolute conclusions and objective values that may be discerned through use of reason, and that these are noble goals.

Your statement implies that you are utilizing a relative application of an objective philosophy, which is an idealistic contradiction. Idealism without absolutes makes one a Romanticist at best and a Nihilist at worse. But never an Objectivist. :D

Edited by xeper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

xeper I believe the burden of proof, specifically to the effect that "video games (in their entirety) are irrational", is on you my friend.

And to save our time (which could be used to play D&D online like I do) present your arguments on the thread as opposed to forcing us to infer your arguments from links.

This does not make an activity immoral. Actually acquired short term happiness can definitely have more value that potential long term happiness, contextually speaking of course. Nothing about Objectivism states "Thou shalt never seek to enjoy in endeavors that may involve only short term happiness." I would also argue that there is no evidence to suggest that the enjoyment of an accomplishment beating or master a video game is necessarily a short term happiness. To this day I'm still satisfied by the thought of beating Diablo on Nightmare level. The bulk of the game is a reinforcement of the idea that one man can conquer great evil and profit from it along the way.

edited for spelling

This quote more clearly emphasizes a point I was trying to make earlier:

A rational, and I will go as far as to say and Objectivist's life is not only comprised of meeting the requirements of biological existence.

I say this again because, as you may not realize, taking this stance on video games is automatically and by proxy damning any exercise of the mind that is not for the ends of explicit production or "biological management." This is the essential that is opposing your initial statements and is the fact that has put the burden of proof in your hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you also think Ayn Rand was irrational for having a stamp collection? Clearly, collecting little pieces of colored paper did nothing to enhance her productivity which is therefore "irrational." Because she wasted her time collecting and contemplating said pieces of paper instead of writing more books, she was not only irrational but immoral. Right? To use your criteria...

- hijack an individual's senses, disabling their ability to perceive reality through reason.
Those arrestingly mesmeric little pictures on her stamps clearly disabled her senses from pursuing more rational goals

- encourage participation in an economic system that sets the individual as a financial means to others.

You're right! I never thought of this before but maybe her immoral stamp collection made her sell her books to publishers, which encouraged participation in an economic system that set her as a financial means to others! Brilliant!

- in the making may involve the sacrifice of the physical and/or mental well being of others (see: EA's treatement of employees).
Oh no! The poor proletariat of those stamp factories! Too bad they don't live under an economic system that let them choose their jobs...

- are the means to short-term happiness, and thus inferior to long-term happiness as potentially acquired by alternate uses of one's time.

So you mean if Ayn Rand ever eat anything other than bread, water, and other essential food items she'd be acting immorally? Of course - why didn't I ever think of that! Oh wait - do you think we could exempt her from condemnation if it was just some immoral, pleasure inducing cheese on her pasta - they really go well together! Oh silly me again - that's a conceptual package deal! There's no objective necessity to even eat pasta at all. Let's impose economic sanctions on Italy!

- detract from the productive potential of an individual.
Yep definitely applies here. Those evil stamps again. And pasta. Do you think sex also applies? I know it's only short term pleasure...

- 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.

The stamps were addictive. Otherwise why would Rand continue to collect them? And since Rand had to look down at the stamps and wasn't able to hold her head at a perpetual (but heroic tilt) of (exactly) 73.2 degrees upward she wasn't able to actualize herself as a heroic being!

- potentially suggest immoral behaviours and beliefs.

Well stamps helped perpetuate the (then) illegal and immoral US Postal Service, and I know that pasta has formed it's own religion! http://www.venganza.org/

Xeper - do you have anymore nuggets of wisdom for us? :D

Edited by Myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The summary from the article you quote above;

I'd hardly call that a supporting statement.

My initial statement was thus:

- hijack an individual's senses, disabling their ability to perceive reality through reason.

The article's summary gives concession to the fact that acute, adverse effects can arise from playing games, even in moderation, and implies that there is a greater frequency of minor, temporal adverse effects.

Earlier in the article is the following quote:

One innovative application of video games in health care is their use in pain management. The degree of attention needed to play such a game can distract the player from the sensation of pain, a strategy that has been reported and evaluated among paediatric patients... Controlled studies using both randomised controlled trials and comparison with patient's own baseline measures show that video games can provide cognitive distraction for children...
Evidence of cognitive impairment and the potential for adverse effects, regardless of severity or duration, supports the statement I have made.

This does not make an activity immoral.

The Objectivist philosophy holds Reason, Purpose, and Self-esteem to be fundamental values, to which rational self-interest is the principle that determines the morality of an act. An activity that does not provide for any rational self-interest is amoral. An activity that is in direct contradiction of rational self-interest is immoral.

Actually acquired short term happiness can definitely have more value that potential long term hapiness, contextually speaking of course.
Contextually speaking, by definition, short-term happiness is an emotional (irrational) response. Long-term happiness is a non-contradictory, psychological response to a succesful state of life in which an individual has actualized (a) fundamental value(s). See above for what these values are for an Objectivist.

Nothing about Objectivism states "Thou shalt never seek to enjoy in endeavors that may involve only short term happiness."

Rand states:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
Going further, the pursuit of happiness can not meet its goal without: 1. taking into account one's own long-term rational self interests, 2. being aware of one's own interactions with nature and society, and 3. developing a refined understanding of the pleasure and pain principles that exist in one's daily life.

I would also argue that there is no evidence to suggest that the enjoyment of an accomplishment beating or master a video game is necessarily a short term happiness. To this day I'm still satisfied by the thought of beating Diablo on Nightmare level. The bulk of the game is a reinforcement of the idea that one man can conquer great evil and profit from it along the way.

The irrational pursuit of escapism and play without purpose is merely a short range desire, not a genuine value, and the subsequent short-term happiness of beating a game is an ephemeral emotional (irrational) state of joy. Nostaglia of such "acheivements" does not adequately gild the activity with Reason, and attempts to derive self-worth through inventing defense values does not relay Objectivist competency.

Again, there is no commandment in Objectivism that states; "Thou shalt spend every waking moment in a productive capacity, never stopping to relax engage in leisurely activities." except for the fact that leisurely activities CAN BE productive by virtue of their ability to reduce stress and allow for greater LONG TERM productivity.
Straw man arguments are counterproductive.

- 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.

Or may not. No proof of irrationality there.

- potentially suggest immoral behaviours and beliefs.

Or not. No proof of irraitonality there.

Unless these circumstances are true.

Actually it was your title (Video Games are Irrational) that lends one to believe you have "finalized" your conclusion on the matter. I can alter the title if you like to indicate that you actually intend this to be a discussion or a debate.

It is a premise that serves well as a topic. And as two Objectivist faculties of Reason are better than one, we will more quickly determine whether this premise is true, moral, and absolute or false, immoral, and relative. :D

Edited by xeper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xeper - do you have anymore nuggets of wisdom for us? :D

Only this:

I'm here to see if my premise is valid or not. Straw men arguments, sarcasm, absurdity, or other irrational and emotional responses are counterproductive and will be ignored. They are beneath acknowledgement. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Objectivist philosophy holds Reason, Purpose, and Self-esteem to be fundamental values, to which rational self-interest is the principle that determines the morality of an act. An activity that does not provide for any rational self-interest is amoral. An activity that is in direct contradiction of rational self-interest is immoral.

I would like to ask you to define what you think 'rational self-interest' is and how it is determined.

I think at that point we may be able to have a clearer understanding of your understanding of Objectivist ethics and may continue.

Though some of the responses thus far have been a bit sarcastic, which is due to your seriousness in your package-dealing, I think you would be served well in considering some of the reasoning behind most of the comments thus far.

In short, again, life qua man is not merely staying alive and producing to that end, it is a pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of it, tempered by rational self-interest which is determined within the context of each individual's life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm here to see if my premise is valid or not. Straw men arguments, sarcasm, absurdity, or other irrational and emotional responses are counterproductive and will be ignored. They are beneath acknowledgement. Thank you.

Are all video games immoral? Are there any exceptions? Is it simply a certain genre of video games?

What of video games such as was mentioned, chess. What of games that test spatial/pattern recognition? What of intense strategy games that teach resource/time management? What of games designed for children to teach reading/math/science, etc? What if it's your job to play test games?

I do not think you can call video games immoral. They are a thing. The way people play video games, the reasons they do, the amount of time they spend playing may be immoral, but I can not see any sort of foundation for calling video games immoral.

Edited by Lathanar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence of cognitive impairment and the potential for adverse effects, regardless of severity or duration, supports the statement I have made.

Can you provide evidence for serious adverse effects due to only moderate frequency of play?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article's summary gives concession to the fact that acute, adverse effects can arise from playing games, even in moderation, and implies that there is a greater frequency of minor, temporal adverse effects.

Yes, can being the operative word. Therefore the title, in which you claim the are, is not accurate. If you title was "Video Games Can Be Irrational", it would be a true statement. Also, your title would be inconsistent with your "initial statement". As it is, you have not proven your argument. The article you quoted also talked about the use of Video Games for Therapeutic purposes. This also counters your claim that "Video Games ARE Irrational".

The Objectivist philosophy holds...
I'm well aware of that. But I'm waiting for the argument that Video Games ARE Irrational, not that they can be.

Contextually speaking, by definition, short-term happiness is an emotional (irrational) response.

Prove that. Emotional responses are not irrational in and of themselves (short term happiness or otherwise), it is the basis for the emotional reaction that determines it's rationality.

Going further, the pursuit of happiness can not meet its goal without: 1. taking into account one's own long-term rational self interests, 2. being aware of one's own interactions with nature and society, and 3. developing a refined understanding of the pleasure and pain principles that exist in one's daily life.
Okay, but where have you demonstrated that video games NECESSARILY do not meet those "requiements". Claims of "can" do not fit the bill.

Straw man arguments are counterproductive.

As are false accusations of logical fallacies. I brought up a legitimate point, ignore it if you wish.

Unless these circumstances are true.
But those statements themselves indicate that they are not true all the time. "May" and "Potentially" do not equal "are".

It is a premise that serves well as a topic.

In my evaluation, it remains untrue so far. You are making statements of principle that may or may not apply, but YOU are not connecting them to concretes that demonstrate that they ARE applicable in ALL cases of people playing video games. As another poster said, don't make you arguments by links to other people's thinking. What is YOUR argument, not you connected series of regurgitated Objectivist principles. It's not our job to counter something that is yet to be presented.

Just so you know, and I don't expect you to take this as evidence or argument, I play video games, I'm very happy, and I sleep well during the day (because I work night shift). I also lead a productive life (occupationally and otherwise). If you don't want to invite me over for dinner because justice demands that each man be treated as he deserves, and because you think playing video games is immoral, I can live with that, well in fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very funny topic.

Wow...you know...sometimes people just over think things way too much.

Rand never meant you couldn't have fun.

Just keep video games in their proper place if you enjoy them.

You don't need to be anal to live by the philosophy of Objectivism.

Now, I am off to read some irrational books by Orson Scott Card for entertainment.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very funny topic.

Wow...you know...sometimes people just over think things way too much.

Rand never meant you couldn't have fun.

Just keep video games in their proper place if you enjoy them.

You don't need to be anal to live by the philosophy of Objectivism.

Now, I am off to read some irrational books by Orson Scott Card for entertainment.....

This is in line with what I have always thought. Objectivism doesn't demand productivity 18 hours a day. I really don't see any life affirming, pro reason aspect to diving off a cliff naked, like Roark does.

Hobbies, reading novels that lack much philosophy, movies, sitting in a park, playing monopoly with friends, gambling...all OK so long as you are not sacrificing greater values to them. If you get fired from a job you love because you were up all night playing 'Diablo' or your kids starve because you give all your money away at a casino then it is a problem, otherwise it is just relaxing.

I feel the same way about television. I think it is an irrational waste of time, but that is mostly because I don't feel that i get anything out of it. (Firefly was the one exception)I wouldn't apply that to everyone else though. I could understand someone having an interest in the discovery channel, or a cop show, or whatever. It is important to seperate your personal values from morality generally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys I made a new essay, tell me what you think! :D

Relationships are Irrational

Relationships are irrational for several reasons:

--A relationship can cause acute and even long term cognitive duress through emotional stress.

--Time spent in a relationship should be better used for productive purposes, such as your career. (Please note that actively building your happiness with a human bond is never productive).

--Relationships with the wrong people are often responsible for producing immoral behaviors or beliefs.

--May lead to addictive behavior such as codependency.

--When making a relationship you may be sacrificing the well being of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contextually speaking, by definition, short-term happiness is an emotional (irrational) response. Long-term happiness is a non-contradictory, psychological response to a succesful state of life in which an individual has actualized (a) fundamental value(s).
I don't understand this statement. The questions I have are:
  • What is "short term" term happiness? If one spends 30 minutes enjoying an excellent burger cooked by the best burger cook in the world, is that "short term happiness"?
  • Could you elaborate on the difference between an "emotional response" and a "psychological response".
  • When you say "emotional (irrational)" are you implying that this particular emotional response is irrational or that emotional responses are irrational as such?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- hijack an individual's senses, disabling their ability to perceive reality through reason.

- may lend to a form of addiction or dependancy

(Unlike physical dependence?) psychological dependence debilitates and disables only to the extent that an individual wills it so. If one resists dependence, there's nothing irrational.

- 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

Is there any force involved here? Otherwise those employers choose to work in those situations; this may make them irrational, but it in no way makes their product irrational.

- [short-term happiness is]inferior to long-term happiness as potentially acquired by alternate uses of one's time.

- detract from the productive potential of an individual.

To the contrary, long-term happiness backed with short-term relaxation is superior to long-term happiness alone. Eliminating short-term relaxations would be the detracting and irrational act, not relaxing itself.

- potentially suggest immoral behaviours and beliefs.
That linked thread (anti-Objectivist video games) was very subjective, and being presented a immoral "suggestion" doesn't itself make one more likely to act immorally.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...