Freedom is a complicated subject, but also the basis for most schools of thought. Religion requires the ability to choose between right and wrong in order to function, but philosophy also assumes that there is an intrinsic nature of free will in order to make decisions (otherwise ends or means wouldn't matter, because what we are going to do is what we are going to do), but very rarely is the nature of freedom analyzed beyond either a lack of servitude or the ability to make decisions. However, what is the nature of being free beyond the physical or philosophical? There are more levels to freedom than simply making our own choices.
I propose that freedom is wanting to do what you should do. I believe that there is one correct (or various correct, depending on the situation) way to act, at least concerning ethics. Freedom means a lack of coercion that would attempt to prevent you choosing to do that action. Essentially, I could allowed to make only one choice a day, but if I could make the right choice at that branch, without coercion, I would be free. If I was given a thousand opportunities, but made a wrong one because I was lured into it, I would not be free. However, making a wrong decision of my own accord is an act of freedom (though in that context I would rather be a slave, unable to choose.) While this is a depressing view of freedom, the premise extends beyond narrow philosophical allusions. Freedom in my view extends beyond that, a complete freedom- physical, mental, and philosophical. This means three things.
First, there can be no tangible force preventing me from making the right decision. If I was restrained, and couldn't help someone who was injured, I would not be free to make that choice and therefore would not be free. Furthermore, there could be no threat of violence, reprimand, or punishment that would deter me from making the right choice- though hopefully the impetus for the proper course of action would outweigh the negative stimuli. Even if I made the decision and was punished for it, I would not be free, because making the right decision had negative consequences, designed to deter me from doing so again, or in more severe cases deal damage to me so that I would be less able to act in the future. You will notice that I do not care if I am forced to do what is right, such as following laws, because I am not forced to go against my ideals. Note that my nature is to do what is wrong, but if I am prevented from being able to choose what is not right, I am not impaired, I am aided. Again, depressing, but not once you think about the consequences of wrong actions.
Second, there can be no mental persuasion that is holding me in sway. These are more varied, from bribes and incentives to addiction, trauma, stress, and even mental conditioning (i.e. punishment for doing the action in the past). If I act out of a neurological urge resulting from addiction, I am not free (presuming the action is wrong), or if I do wrong because of a personal incentive or bribe I am not free to choose because the choice, normally a split decision, is weighted in the favor of what is wrong. While these *DO NOT* justify doing harm, they are limitations of freedom, but even a prisoner is held accountable for his actions, and growing up in a family of thieves does not justify theft, but does instil an idea that theft is acceptable. However, being conditioned by punishment to deter from what is wrong is still freedom, because it prompts the correct response. Certainly being punished for stealing is not wrong, and the resulting deterrence is also wrong. In order to invalidate at least this portion of the argument, it would be necessary to state that the threat of prison or other punitive measures is wrong.
Third, there can be no philosophical strings attached- meaning that there can be no "set up" of the situation. There can be no condition that makes the situation wrong. Each action must be considered entirely independent of the context- otherwise, an individual begins to execute justice. It would be wrong to deny help to a wounded murderer, even though they have guilt that could condemn them to death. Furthermore, there cannot be an unreasonable expectation of knowledge. If helping the wounded murderer would result in the murderer overpowering the doctor and then escaping to kill again, but the doctor has no way to know that the wounded individual is a murderer, the doctor cannot be held accountable. However, helping a murderer and then allowing him to escape knowing that he is a criminal is wrong, since this thwarts justice. However, the justice must be executed by the state. This is not to say that individuals cannot help the state, the doctor would be obligated to restrain or detain the murderer, but could not arrest and execute the man. Similarly, anyone doing something that is harmful should be restrained- a rioter should be restrained by anyone capable of doing so, but should not be arrested and thrown in prison by a bystander, because this bypasses justice. In the absence of government, vigilantism is justified as the only method of justice, but while government exists, it has a monopoly over punitive force unless otherwise granted (i.e. parents disciplining their children). To pertain more to freedom, if I am forced to do wrong because I helped someone in need, and that individual used my aid to harm others, but I had no knowledge of his evil intent, then I am not culpable of that situation. Furthermore, if I do wrong to a someone because they have done something to harm me, I am still doing wrong, because I did something to take justice into my own hands, which is inherently wrong. However, if I shot and killed someone because they were about to shoot me or someone else, I am not culpable, because the justice of government means nothing if the harm could have been prevented. However, if I shot and killed someone when I could have merely subdued him without any harm coming of it, I have taken justice into my own hands, and have done wrong. However, the philosophical situation cannot dictate the action's goodness- if the suspect I subdued later killed someone, I am not guilty because I chose not to kill him. The situations stand independently because of the freedom of choice- the past is done and gone, and I as an individual should not hold others accountable unless they have done a crime against me or society and have not been punished, and I cannot act to prevent something in the distant future, because individuals have the right to choose and the future is not written entirely by the present (just because someone stole from me doesn't mean I can assume they will steal again, and though it does not mean I should ignore their past actions, I cannot assume they will always steal.)
To summarize, freedom means your decisions are not influenced by another and not manipulated by outside forces, but can be influenced by protections that only prevent you from doing what is wrong. The reason for this is that when you do what is wrong, there are consequences. A safeguard that keeps me from stealing limits my options, but not my freedom, but a barrier to helping others in need limits my freedom.
What is right and wrong is a much lengthier discussion.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
The Importance of Worship to Faith
I'm a ministry major, so if you read this blog, even though it's just random thoughts, you'll probably see some ministry stuff. If you want to change your life for the better, go ahead and read it. If you don't like religion or faith, feel free to click away. I won't be offended and it's only your loss.
Many people don't understand faith, even those who profess to have faith in Christ. Frequently, faith is treated as simply a ceremony performed on Sundays that covers you for the week or month or time between visits, and while this might be true for the purpose of salvation (the Christian faith holds that if you believe in Christ as savior, no matter what you've done or what you do, as long as you look to Christ for salvation, you will be saved), it is not the best way to live your life. Even in my relatively comfortable life, the difference from when I treated faith as a ritual to when I actively engaged in my faith in Christ is a night and day difference in how I feel and view the world.
For others, active engagement is a check-box, wherein you devote a half hour to reading the Bible or praying, but it's simply a chore or ritual. While this is probably better than the former, simply going through the motions is frequently insufficient to significantly change your life. While many things are beneficial to spiritual growth, and any involvement is better than none, a ritual is a sorry devotion because it's like punching a clock to get paid. You do it, but it doesn't really seem like something you would want to do, and for good reason. The Bible can be hard to read, especially in more literal translations that leave some grammar and context to an individuals deciphering and research or the genealogy or law chapters (these are indeed worth reading, but can be difficult and painful to go through, especially if going for comprehension or thoroughness). However, while this can bring a degree of spiritual satisfaction, I propose an additional easy supplement to the touted prayer and reading routine: worship.
Worship is defined as to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion, but in all practicality it can simply be paying respect to God by saying "This is Your creation, and it is good." There are a myriad of ways to do this, ranging from singing hymns and songs in church, to actively worshiping through music (even listening), or simply acknowledging a greatness about something and ascribing what is good of it to God. While not taking the place of prayer or reading, worship can be just as beneficial in helping your faith grow.
My personal form of worship is listening to music and singing along to the lines of praise. I've found some songs that speak profoundly to me and always remind me of what is important in life, and make an effort to not only listen to these songs, but engage in thinking about what the lines are and what they mean. Everyone can have their own form of worship, and there's no real restriction on what worship can and cannot be (excepting, of course, sin, which is anything that is displeasing to God). Worship is also more than simply an emotional experience or spiritual discipline, but also a precedent- as Christians, we are called to be living temples, meaning that we are to be glorifying to God, and impressive through our actions and words as the temple was through stone and gold. Worship is also doing things that are pleasing to God, and abstinence from sin. Perpetual worship can be as easy as doing what is right to other people because they are to be treated as Christ, and avoiding harm or anything impure or sinful that would displease God.
Understand that I haven't taken any theology classes yet, but from what I've found in my own walk, I hope this will be helpful to you or at the very least that it will not be harmful.
Many people don't understand faith, even those who profess to have faith in Christ. Frequently, faith is treated as simply a ceremony performed on Sundays that covers you for the week or month or time between visits, and while this might be true for the purpose of salvation (the Christian faith holds that if you believe in Christ as savior, no matter what you've done or what you do, as long as you look to Christ for salvation, you will be saved), it is not the best way to live your life. Even in my relatively comfortable life, the difference from when I treated faith as a ritual to when I actively engaged in my faith in Christ is a night and day difference in how I feel and view the world.
For others, active engagement is a check-box, wherein you devote a half hour to reading the Bible or praying, but it's simply a chore or ritual. While this is probably better than the former, simply going through the motions is frequently insufficient to significantly change your life. While many things are beneficial to spiritual growth, and any involvement is better than none, a ritual is a sorry devotion because it's like punching a clock to get paid. You do it, but it doesn't really seem like something you would want to do, and for good reason. The Bible can be hard to read, especially in more literal translations that leave some grammar and context to an individuals deciphering and research or the genealogy or law chapters (these are indeed worth reading, but can be difficult and painful to go through, especially if going for comprehension or thoroughness). However, while this can bring a degree of spiritual satisfaction, I propose an additional easy supplement to the touted prayer and reading routine: worship.
Worship is defined as to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion, but in all practicality it can simply be paying respect to God by saying "This is Your creation, and it is good." There are a myriad of ways to do this, ranging from singing hymns and songs in church, to actively worshiping through music (even listening), or simply acknowledging a greatness about something and ascribing what is good of it to God. While not taking the place of prayer or reading, worship can be just as beneficial in helping your faith grow.
My personal form of worship is listening to music and singing along to the lines of praise. I've found some songs that speak profoundly to me and always remind me of what is important in life, and make an effort to not only listen to these songs, but engage in thinking about what the lines are and what they mean. Everyone can have their own form of worship, and there's no real restriction on what worship can and cannot be (excepting, of course, sin, which is anything that is displeasing to God). Worship is also more than simply an emotional experience or spiritual discipline, but also a precedent- as Christians, we are called to be living temples, meaning that we are to be glorifying to God, and impressive through our actions and words as the temple was through stone and gold. Worship is also doing things that are pleasing to God, and abstinence from sin. Perpetual worship can be as easy as doing what is right to other people because they are to be treated as Christ, and avoiding harm or anything impure or sinful that would displease God.
Understand that I haven't taken any theology classes yet, but from what I've found in my own walk, I hope this will be helpful to you or at the very least that it will not be harmful.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Solving Asymmetrical Conflict Problems
If you follow the conflicts in the Middle East, Vietnam, and modern battlespaces, the issue facing modern commanders is the difference between traditional forces and modern, guerrilla or insurgent forces. Traditional forces fight a war of strength, but insurgencies wage a war of attrition. There are three key components to fixing an asymmetrical situation- logistics, presence, and intelligence.
Logistics are very difficult in an asymmetric battlespace because of the key issue of space. Lines of supply are tempting targets because by crippling caravans you can rob your enemy of resources and force them to withdraw. The solvency to this issue dwells in options- as a military commander, the way to secure resources is to secure methods of acquisition. Land, air, and sea should all be accessible. There is a simply way to promote access, a basic premise dating back to the Roman Empire and even beyond- secure camps. If you can secure a foothold that your enemy cannot crush, you can free yourself from needing to fight a defensive campaign. The way to apply this concept is to establish military cities independent of civilian infrastructure- especially when fighting insurgents who use the civilian infrastructure to strike at bases and presences. These cities would optimally be established on coastlines away from civilian sites to prevent interference. Coastlines open a stable source of resources- sea. Inland bases need to be resupplied by ground convoys or more expensive air routes. Sea is both harder to target by a landlocked enemy, but also allows naval assets to be deployed. However, inland conflicts limit the availability of sea routes. Still the concept of isolated bases as centers of logistics is effective. Furthermore, these ought not be bases or outposts, but entire centers of combat, secured within a radius from civilian centers and monitored by UAV or satellite surveillance. Making an impenetrable foothold is both a boon to morale, but offers a fallback point if anything goes wrong. These centers ought be the largest presence a force deploys.
Presence is an important issue because large forces present tempting targets to ambushes, long range attacks, IEDs and traps. Furthermore, traditional presences are easy to track and difficult to move without alerting hostiles. An alternate presence method is using small, infantry or light vehicle oriented groups that comb the wilderness and engage from long distances. Whatever the situation, it is imperative to know the landscape of a region, and spread forces across various routes to limit the damage potential, and use air or fast ground assets to respond to threats. Slow land assets should be reserved for strategic strikes, and never moved in the open without light, fast cover and recon to insure their security. Drone forces are essential to winning an asymmetrical engagement because they are more disposable than soldiers. Drones can allow expedient movement to dangerous areas because they can soak explosive and armor piercing weaponry, and can pave the way for trained soldiers who can see insurgent reactions and eliminate unsettled or exposed insurgents who react to drones. Aerial recon and attack drones serve as great methods of securing potentially dangerous areas and surveying civilian areas. Land drones can sweep and clear without the risk of catching gunfire or triggering explosives, especially hardy models that can withstand blasts and light gunfire. In addition, deployed land assets should focus on being harder to touch- every vehicle destroyed or soldier killed can be exploited to bolster morale. Blast proof and durable light vehicles are essential to fast, light deployments, provided they can be given exits if the situation gets too tough. Heavy vehicles should always be attached a lighter, faster escort that can sweep the area. All vehicles should be designed to go off road, in order to avoid ambushes and IEDs that are staged along civilian routes. Infantry forces should be small and include marksmen and medics, with air support kept at hand to respond to overwhelming threats. Artillery should be established in safe locations to target any attacks on supply centers or bases, and to support attacks and forays. Engagement with civilian centers should be limited to avoid civilian casualties and the risk of hidden insurgents. Squads should be assigned to learning the terrain and moving off the paths to search for and destroy insurgents, as well as to watch civilian centers from a distance and strike from a range using snipers before heavy engagements begin.
Intelligence is vitally important, but infiltration takes time and is risky. An alternative is UAV and satellite surveillance. While these techniques can be expensive to maintain, a heavy intelligence presence can pay off by revealing enemy positions and warning of impending actions. This advanced warning will enable commanders to react to threats. Forces should also recon- with modern communication technology, there is no excuse for not using recon elements to relay situations on the ground. Light and fast vehicles should sweep ahead at high speeds and search for likely problems and situations, while moving at a speed that would make insurgent responses rushed and ineffective. Infantry squads should be prepared to operate for extended durations and scout positions before conflicts.
Asymmetrical conflicts can only be solved by using less force, not more. Nimble and spontaneous tactics and actions (with the foundation of good intelligence) will enable a larger traditional force to effectively counter a smaller, less centralized, modern force.
Logistics are very difficult in an asymmetric battlespace because of the key issue of space. Lines of supply are tempting targets because by crippling caravans you can rob your enemy of resources and force them to withdraw. The solvency to this issue dwells in options- as a military commander, the way to secure resources is to secure methods of acquisition. Land, air, and sea should all be accessible. There is a simply way to promote access, a basic premise dating back to the Roman Empire and even beyond- secure camps. If you can secure a foothold that your enemy cannot crush, you can free yourself from needing to fight a defensive campaign. The way to apply this concept is to establish military cities independent of civilian infrastructure- especially when fighting insurgents who use the civilian infrastructure to strike at bases and presences. These cities would optimally be established on coastlines away from civilian sites to prevent interference. Coastlines open a stable source of resources- sea. Inland bases need to be resupplied by ground convoys or more expensive air routes. Sea is both harder to target by a landlocked enemy, but also allows naval assets to be deployed. However, inland conflicts limit the availability of sea routes. Still the concept of isolated bases as centers of logistics is effective. Furthermore, these ought not be bases or outposts, but entire centers of combat, secured within a radius from civilian centers and monitored by UAV or satellite surveillance. Making an impenetrable foothold is both a boon to morale, but offers a fallback point if anything goes wrong. These centers ought be the largest presence a force deploys.
Presence is an important issue because large forces present tempting targets to ambushes, long range attacks, IEDs and traps. Furthermore, traditional presences are easy to track and difficult to move without alerting hostiles. An alternate presence method is using small, infantry or light vehicle oriented groups that comb the wilderness and engage from long distances. Whatever the situation, it is imperative to know the landscape of a region, and spread forces across various routes to limit the damage potential, and use air or fast ground assets to respond to threats. Slow land assets should be reserved for strategic strikes, and never moved in the open without light, fast cover and recon to insure their security. Drone forces are essential to winning an asymmetrical engagement because they are more disposable than soldiers. Drones can allow expedient movement to dangerous areas because they can soak explosive and armor piercing weaponry, and can pave the way for trained soldiers who can see insurgent reactions and eliminate unsettled or exposed insurgents who react to drones. Aerial recon and attack drones serve as great methods of securing potentially dangerous areas and surveying civilian areas. Land drones can sweep and clear without the risk of catching gunfire or triggering explosives, especially hardy models that can withstand blasts and light gunfire. In addition, deployed land assets should focus on being harder to touch- every vehicle destroyed or soldier killed can be exploited to bolster morale. Blast proof and durable light vehicles are essential to fast, light deployments, provided they can be given exits if the situation gets too tough. Heavy vehicles should always be attached a lighter, faster escort that can sweep the area. All vehicles should be designed to go off road, in order to avoid ambushes and IEDs that are staged along civilian routes. Infantry forces should be small and include marksmen and medics, with air support kept at hand to respond to overwhelming threats. Artillery should be established in safe locations to target any attacks on supply centers or bases, and to support attacks and forays. Engagement with civilian centers should be limited to avoid civilian casualties and the risk of hidden insurgents. Squads should be assigned to learning the terrain and moving off the paths to search for and destroy insurgents, as well as to watch civilian centers from a distance and strike from a range using snipers before heavy engagements begin.
Intelligence is vitally important, but infiltration takes time and is risky. An alternative is UAV and satellite surveillance. While these techniques can be expensive to maintain, a heavy intelligence presence can pay off by revealing enemy positions and warning of impending actions. This advanced warning will enable commanders to react to threats. Forces should also recon- with modern communication technology, there is no excuse for not using recon elements to relay situations on the ground. Light and fast vehicles should sweep ahead at high speeds and search for likely problems and situations, while moving at a speed that would make insurgent responses rushed and ineffective. Infantry squads should be prepared to operate for extended durations and scout positions before conflicts.
Asymmetrical conflicts can only be solved by using less force, not more. Nimble and spontaneous tactics and actions (with the foundation of good intelligence) will enable a larger traditional force to effectively counter a smaller, less centralized, modern force.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Government and Finances
I'm going to be very unpopular after this post...
I'm sure that you probably know of the American government's financial state, and the lack of agreement as to a solution. The conservatives are focused on cutting spending to what they see as wasteful spending programs, and the liberals are focused on taxing the rich in order to give the government more money to cover social programs. I'm not going to attack these programs now, but I am going to say that the federal budget is out of control. I have one suggestion to both sides: grow up.
I was raised in a financially aware family, with my parents wanting me to make financially sound decisions and I striving against that, and always considered what I would do if I was ever in economic hardship or even the big d-word... debt. However, the approach is different for a government. In a government, there are special interests, impossible promises, and cries to save the whatever it is that matters today (frequently at the cost of the well being of both the people who soak the price and also otherizing or degrading the recipients). I believe that the government has a big problem in cutting the debt- itself. The way a government functions is based entirely in politics, but that is neither pragmatic nor practical.
The solution to the problems is a marriage of the proposals by both sides- not a compromise with both sides giving some ground, but both sides must give all ground in order to promote a recovery from the debt. At 4.6% annual interest (the rate of a US Treasury I bond) is 657,360,159,500,000 (as of when I calculated it). That would be about 658 billion dollars rounded up because the amount is increasing- rapidly. This is the amount that taxpayers waste each year IN INTEREST ON THE DEBT! I don't know about you, but 657 billion could save a lot of whatevers, so here's what I propose, a radical theory that makes no sense and will be denounced as heresy- cut spending AND raise taxes. It's a principle called austerity- you keep your economy in line. Once you do that, you can actually fix the problems. The amount of interest wasted greatly increases the debt, but instead of fixing the problem, Washington twiddles its thumbs in a childish debate. Both sides need to come forward to the American people, and clearly say that there's a problem that needs to be fixed.
Or we could just pass on the debt, because the next generation loves taxes and is entirely self reliant and won't need social programs.
I'm sure that you probably know of the American government's financial state, and the lack of agreement as to a solution. The conservatives are focused on cutting spending to what they see as wasteful spending programs, and the liberals are focused on taxing the rich in order to give the government more money to cover social programs. I'm not going to attack these programs now, but I am going to say that the federal budget is out of control. I have one suggestion to both sides: grow up.
I was raised in a financially aware family, with my parents wanting me to make financially sound decisions and I striving against that, and always considered what I would do if I was ever in economic hardship or even the big d-word... debt. However, the approach is different for a government. In a government, there are special interests, impossible promises, and cries to save the whatever it is that matters today (frequently at the cost of the well being of both the people who soak the price and also otherizing or degrading the recipients). I believe that the government has a big problem in cutting the debt- itself. The way a government functions is based entirely in politics, but that is neither pragmatic nor practical.
The solution to the problems is a marriage of the proposals by both sides- not a compromise with both sides giving some ground, but both sides must give all ground in order to promote a recovery from the debt. At 4.6% annual interest (the rate of a US Treasury I bond) is 657,360,159,500,000 (as of when I calculated it). That would be about 658 billion dollars rounded up because the amount is increasing- rapidly. This is the amount that taxpayers waste each year IN INTEREST ON THE DEBT! I don't know about you, but 657 billion could save a lot of whatevers, so here's what I propose, a radical theory that makes no sense and will be denounced as heresy- cut spending AND raise taxes. It's a principle called austerity- you keep your economy in line. Once you do that, you can actually fix the problems. The amount of interest wasted greatly increases the debt, but instead of fixing the problem, Washington twiddles its thumbs in a childish debate. Both sides need to come forward to the American people, and clearly say that there's a problem that needs to be fixed.
Or we could just pass on the debt, because the next generation loves taxes and is entirely self reliant and won't need social programs.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Games and Culture
Games and Culture: Why games are not art... yet.
I'm a gamer. Not going to lie, I spend a lot (probably way too much) time on games. Games are very popular, and I'll probably get yelled at from a few fellow nerds for saying that not all games are art. Certainly some games are art (and I'm probably biased), but a vast majority are drivel. To find the answer, we must know what is art.
So what does art entail? Art has been defined in many ways, by many people, frequently to include or exclude what they want to in order to prove a point. I'm going to follow in their footsteps and define art as something that makes you think, or muse, or contemplate a specific or general action, feeling, or thought. This technically means that art is subjective, up to the whims of an individual. Any specific examples, therefore, are invalidated, because people think differently. However, we can see the purpose of the game as an example? Is it just to have fun or be amusement (the entomology of such literally meaning to be without thought), or does it engage the player and make them think? The answer to that question determines art, and as such, many books, movies, photos, music, and even classical paintings are not art.
Why are not all games art? Many have impressive graphics or sound, impressive gameplay, and the list goes on to oblivion. The reason is that these games stop there, being mainly eyecandy or impressive visually, but not raising any questions about life proper. Deus Ex (the original, old, pixely exploration/adventure) beats out Call of Duty, whatever they're on now because of how it presents issues. In Call of Duty, you play a soldier, pull the trigger, perhaps some engagement at a few story points, but your actions have no consequence or purpose. In Deus Ex, you encounter all of society, the gritty and the glamorous and have to make decisions that have lasting consequences. Games will never have true consequences, as the characters within them are just lines of code made to perform a prepared purpose, but some games seriously consider the characters as having weight, yet others simply use them as vehicles for entertainment. This distinction helps draw a basic line between the two, because characters that emulate human traits tend to make us evaluate our actions, but characters that simply serve to entertain don't make us question anything. Characters do not need to be human, but must be important to the player, so as to make simply ignoring them or exploiting them an action that will have consequences as in real life.
Many games are not art because their purposes are entertainment. I'm not saying it's wrong to have fun playing games, but it's not the same as engaging in a game. Fun is a goal in and of itself, but it does not bring about improvement or questioning or benefits that art has as a matter of secondary impact. I'm not saying that Halo or Call of Duty ought to be boycotted, but they are not on the same level as a game that makes you think. However, many games are detrimental to thought. Consumable substances range from medicines that can heal, foods that can satiate but are dangerous if out of portion, and finally destructive chemicals and poisons that are detrimental to health. Similarly, there are many types of game. Some are truly art and encourage development, thought, and improvement. I would say that a vast majority are simply entertainment, generating fun but not really any value. However, there are some that are negative in impact- not simply a time waster or pointless fun with friends, but literally harmful. These games desensitize or promote harmful behavior or viewpoints. Sexism is a major issue in the gaming industry because sex sells. However, truly helpful images of women are incredibly rare, with most women either being exalted heroines that don't really serve to promote women but rather serve to create an impossible standard and fantastical figure, or simply appeal to the largely male demographics that play games, seducing gamers with images and degrading women from individuals to simply objects. Other vices abound, but it's hard to do drugs digitally, but objectification and the like are much easier. I don't support the theories that video games cause violence, but they can make violence seem more acceptable because the victim "deserved it" or "it was awesome!" The lack of consequence in games serves to contribute to a perception of lack of consequence in real life, which isn't true.
I'm not trying to criticize gaming unfairly- most other mediums of media are just as bad if not possibly worse. However, the fact that gamers whine about being excluded from the art moniker, then go back to playing Call of Duty mindlessly is a bit annoying. The video game industry (and other industries also) need to realize that mindless entertainment doesn't last. The great classics of television such as The Andy Griffith show will be remembered for their plots and themes, but the shows of today will be remembered for edgy jokes, profanity, and how they treat issues casually. Media in its entirety has lost the point of entertainment, which would be improvement through providing models for action and asking questions that mundane lives fail to present.
I'm a gamer. Not going to lie, I spend a lot (probably way too much) time on games. Games are very popular, and I'll probably get yelled at from a few fellow nerds for saying that not all games are art. Certainly some games are art (and I'm probably biased), but a vast majority are drivel. To find the answer, we must know what is art.
So what does art entail? Art has been defined in many ways, by many people, frequently to include or exclude what they want to in order to prove a point. I'm going to follow in their footsteps and define art as something that makes you think, or muse, or contemplate a specific or general action, feeling, or thought. This technically means that art is subjective, up to the whims of an individual. Any specific examples, therefore, are invalidated, because people think differently. However, we can see the purpose of the game as an example? Is it just to have fun or be amusement (the entomology of such literally meaning to be without thought), or does it engage the player and make them think? The answer to that question determines art, and as such, many books, movies, photos, music, and even classical paintings are not art.
Why are not all games art? Many have impressive graphics or sound, impressive gameplay, and the list goes on to oblivion. The reason is that these games stop there, being mainly eyecandy or impressive visually, but not raising any questions about life proper. Deus Ex (the original, old, pixely exploration/adventure) beats out Call of Duty, whatever they're on now because of how it presents issues. In Call of Duty, you play a soldier, pull the trigger, perhaps some engagement at a few story points, but your actions have no consequence or purpose. In Deus Ex, you encounter all of society, the gritty and the glamorous and have to make decisions that have lasting consequences. Games will never have true consequences, as the characters within them are just lines of code made to perform a prepared purpose, but some games seriously consider the characters as having weight, yet others simply use them as vehicles for entertainment. This distinction helps draw a basic line between the two, because characters that emulate human traits tend to make us evaluate our actions, but characters that simply serve to entertain don't make us question anything. Characters do not need to be human, but must be important to the player, so as to make simply ignoring them or exploiting them an action that will have consequences as in real life.
Many games are not art because their purposes are entertainment. I'm not saying it's wrong to have fun playing games, but it's not the same as engaging in a game. Fun is a goal in and of itself, but it does not bring about improvement or questioning or benefits that art has as a matter of secondary impact. I'm not saying that Halo or Call of Duty ought to be boycotted, but they are not on the same level as a game that makes you think. However, many games are detrimental to thought. Consumable substances range from medicines that can heal, foods that can satiate but are dangerous if out of portion, and finally destructive chemicals and poisons that are detrimental to health. Similarly, there are many types of game. Some are truly art and encourage development, thought, and improvement. I would say that a vast majority are simply entertainment, generating fun but not really any value. However, there are some that are negative in impact- not simply a time waster or pointless fun with friends, but literally harmful. These games desensitize or promote harmful behavior or viewpoints. Sexism is a major issue in the gaming industry because sex sells. However, truly helpful images of women are incredibly rare, with most women either being exalted heroines that don't really serve to promote women but rather serve to create an impossible standard and fantastical figure, or simply appeal to the largely male demographics that play games, seducing gamers with images and degrading women from individuals to simply objects. Other vices abound, but it's hard to do drugs digitally, but objectification and the like are much easier. I don't support the theories that video games cause violence, but they can make violence seem more acceptable because the victim "deserved it" or "it was awesome!" The lack of consequence in games serves to contribute to a perception of lack of consequence in real life, which isn't true.
I'm not trying to criticize gaming unfairly- most other mediums of media are just as bad if not possibly worse. However, the fact that gamers whine about being excluded from the art moniker, then go back to playing Call of Duty mindlessly is a bit annoying. The video game industry (and other industries also) need to realize that mindless entertainment doesn't last. The great classics of television such as The Andy Griffith show will be remembered for their plots and themes, but the shows of today will be remembered for edgy jokes, profanity, and how they treat issues casually. Media in its entirety has lost the point of entertainment, which would be improvement through providing models for action and asking questions that mundane lives fail to present.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)