Reality
[Thanks to PeteLinforth]
Meaning comes from restriction. Meaning comes from order, and order is a type of restriction. Also, fun comes from restriction (rules). Games are played by rules. But restriction means particulars. It means going from the unified abstract to the divided concrete.
Is something real only if it has consequences? (Say, a happiness drug with no side effects, so you would feel euphoric all the time for no reason at all.)
Virtual reality as an enabler and encourager of gluttony -- why are simulation games, even of mundane activities and tasks, so addicting? (Farmville) After all, I don't think running a real farm is glamorous, so why would a virtual farm be so fun? But then, does this mean that there's something wrong with gluttony (by this I mean a freewheeling gorging on anything desirable)? Related -- I don't think that all men who have a virtual girlfriend have one because they gave up because they thought they had no options. I don't deny that this is often the case but I think it's often the other way around, too -- that a man who's already in a relationship, whether it's bad, OK or even good, can get sucked in. But why should this be? What does the virtual girl have over the real girl, except for probably being prettier (but not necessarily), and never aging? Yes, they're also problem-free and make no demands, but is a real relationship really so troublesome and demanding that the obvious choice is the virtual girl? Obviously not. Even if the above is true (about the superior looks and being really low maintenance) the virtual girl has insuperable drawbacks -- the fact that, I would imagine, their relationship has no depth, is very repetitive, clearly artificial (by this I mean, you say something to your girlfriend and she doesn't respone in a humanly appropriate way [replies with some stock phrase for example]), not to mention all the other limitations of virtual reality (no sex for one, which you would think should be a deal-breaker). Given all this, why would a man prefer the virtual girl? Or is it only a certain kind of man, or some attribute of virtual reality itself? Which leads me to ask, is real always better? Anyways, back to my original question -- this is really all about "everything has a price". My specific question is -- is it not only consequences that constitutes reality, but effort as well? Perhaps even sacrifice, or even pain and suffering?
Related and similar -- Does imperfection have something to do with reality?I won't go so far as to ask if it constitutes reality, but one of the draws of VR (virtual reality) is that everything in the virtual world is perfect. Is it really so horrible to want to live in a world where everyone looks attractive, or is rich? In a bishoujo game or otome/omote? game, all the characters are attractice, but is that really so bad that VR is idealized? Because that's what we all want. But it seems that there's something wrong with a desire for perfection. Not only could it make a real person feel insecure (that they're not good enough in the VR-addict's estimation), it makes the VR user unable to accept the imperfections of real life and to expect impossible standards. This is bad. But does that mean that the desire for perfection is also bad? It would seem that way, but why is it bad? After all, how can perfection be bad? And don't say "for the 2 reasons you listed above". No, properly speaking, those are results of a bad desire. What makes the desire itself bad? (Or is the desire even bad to begin with?) And if the desire isn't bad, how could it lead to bad things (problems in the real world)? I guess this is related to communism -- I know part of the reason communism doesn't work is because it doesn't accord with reality, that is, it assumes that human nature is good and therefore capable of building a utopia. It would indeed be nice if everyone could share things in common, as even in the bible there are examples of this (Acts 2:44-45, 4:34-35), but in reality it's the profit motive, the selfish motive, that brings good to society (though not in its extreme forms, I'd like to clarify [I mean, laissez-faire economics and what happened during the Industrial Revolution]). But to say that this is the ultimate reason communism doesn't work doesn't sound right to me, because it makes the failure for communism not inherent to it, but outside it, because of contingent factors. This is fine if you're a materialist, but for me, it's not enough. So with VR. If we say the desire for perfection is bad because it just so happens to make living IRL (in real life) unpleasant, that's blaming the problem on a contingency (namely, real life). But if my hunch is right, that it's not bad because of a contingency, but because of an inherency, then that leads us to ask how could perfection, and the desire for it, be so bad? And yet, it's true that not being able to accept people the way they are sounds really horrible and like there's something wrong with that.
What's the difference between VR and old-fashioned forms of VR (like plays)? It seems that the old-fashioned versions are actually good, 1)in that they're expressions of one of the highest forms of humanity (I mean, you can only appreciate these things if you're human, and therefore, they're higher pursuits) and 2)I think some escapism, if I should even call it that, is actually good, a form of touching eternity (and points 1 & 2 are related, since, in being human and following human pursuits, we seek to connect to our spiritual home, which we were meant for), but if this is true (and I'm saying it is), then why and what makes stronger forms of VR so harmful and powerful? Doesn't seem that this is merely another soraites issue.
Pleasure/hedonism, which is physical, goes hand-in-hand with fantasy, which is spiritual. Meaning/truth, which is spiritual, is somehow based on the physical (ie, real life/consequences).This is probably easier to understand in a more visual format:
pleasure/hedonism (physical) & fantasy (spiritual) BUT
real life/consequences (physical) & meaning (spiritual)
Now we know, also from the UQ, that pleasure + meaning = happiness. Pleasure without meaning is empty, meaning without pleasure is too grim. While the latter condition is better than the former, ideally, you wouldn't have to choose. But living in reality, while real, can be too drab for many people. They seek to escape into fantasy, which they build up on the pleasure principle.
(This observation is also found under "Happiness".)
The question about reality and perfection is also related to, I think, the problem of evil, since we might say imperfection is a type of evil, as, I'm sure, many people curse their ugly faces, for example, and yet if we hold to the hunch that the desire for perfection is somehow skewed, then might this make it easier to go through life's sufferings, since we could see how imperfection, or at least the acceptance of imperfection, has some merit and virtue? And perhaps we might learn the necessity of imperfection? (This question is also under "Happiness".)
Is something real only if it has consequences? (Say, a happiness drug with no side effects, so you would feel euphoric all the time for no reason at all.)
Virtual reality as an enabler and encourager of gluttony -- why are simulation games, even of mundane activities and tasks, so addicting? (Farmville) After all, I don't think running a real farm is glamorous, so why would a virtual farm be so fun? But then, does this mean that there's something wrong with gluttony (by this I mean a freewheeling gorging on anything desirable)? Related -- I don't think that all men who have a virtual girlfriend have one because they gave up because they thought they had no options. I don't deny that this is often the case but I think it's often the other way around, too -- that a man who's already in a relationship, whether it's bad, OK or even good, can get sucked in. But why should this be? What does the virtual girl have over the real girl, except for probably being prettier (but not necessarily), and never aging? Yes, they're also problem-free and make no demands, but is a real relationship really so troublesome and demanding that the obvious choice is the virtual girl? Obviously not. Even if the above is true (about the superior looks and being really low maintenance) the virtual girl has insuperable drawbacks -- the fact that, I would imagine, their relationship has no depth, is very repetitive, clearly artificial (by this I mean, you say something to your girlfriend and she doesn't respone in a humanly appropriate way [replies with some stock phrase for example]), not to mention all the other limitations of virtual reality (no sex for one, which you would think should be a deal-breaker). Given all this, why would a man prefer the virtual girl? Or is it only a certain kind of man, or some attribute of virtual reality itself? Which leads me to ask, is real always better? Anyways, back to my original question -- this is really all about "everything has a price". My specific question is -- is it not only consequences that constitutes reality, but effort as well? Perhaps even sacrifice, or even pain and suffering?
Related and similar -- Does imperfection have something to do with reality?I won't go so far as to ask if it constitutes reality, but one of the draws of VR (virtual reality) is that everything in the virtual world is perfect. Is it really so horrible to want to live in a world where everyone looks attractive, or is rich? In a bishoujo game or otome/omote? game, all the characters are attractice, but is that really so bad that VR is idealized? Because that's what we all want. But it seems that there's something wrong with a desire for perfection. Not only could it make a real person feel insecure (that they're not good enough in the VR-addict's estimation), it makes the VR user unable to accept the imperfections of real life and to expect impossible standards. This is bad. But does that mean that the desire for perfection is also bad? It would seem that way, but why is it bad? After all, how can perfection be bad? And don't say "for the 2 reasons you listed above". No, properly speaking, those are results of a bad desire. What makes the desire itself bad? (Or is the desire even bad to begin with?) And if the desire isn't bad, how could it lead to bad things (problems in the real world)? I guess this is related to communism -- I know part of the reason communism doesn't work is because it doesn't accord with reality, that is, it assumes that human nature is good and therefore capable of building a utopia. It would indeed be nice if everyone could share things in common, as even in the bible there are examples of this (Acts 2:44-45, 4:34-35), but in reality it's the profit motive, the selfish motive, that brings good to society (though not in its extreme forms, I'd like to clarify [I mean, laissez-faire economics and what happened during the Industrial Revolution]). But to say that this is the ultimate reason communism doesn't work doesn't sound right to me, because it makes the failure for communism not inherent to it, but outside it, because of contingent factors. This is fine if you're a materialist, but for me, it's not enough. So with VR. If we say the desire for perfection is bad because it just so happens to make living IRL (in real life) unpleasant, that's blaming the problem on a contingency (namely, real life). But if my hunch is right, that it's not bad because of a contingency, but because of an inherency, then that leads us to ask how could perfection, and the desire for it, be so bad? And yet, it's true that not being able to accept people the way they are sounds really horrible and like there's something wrong with that.
What's the difference between VR and old-fashioned forms of VR (like plays)? It seems that the old-fashioned versions are actually good, 1)in that they're expressions of one of the highest forms of humanity (I mean, you can only appreciate these things if you're human, and therefore, they're higher pursuits) and 2)I think some escapism, if I should even call it that, is actually good, a form of touching eternity (and points 1 & 2 are related, since, in being human and following human pursuits, we seek to connect to our spiritual home, which we were meant for), but if this is true (and I'm saying it is), then why and what makes stronger forms of VR so harmful and powerful? Doesn't seem that this is merely another soraites issue.
Pleasure/hedonism, which is physical, goes hand-in-hand with fantasy, which is spiritual. Meaning/truth, which is spiritual, is somehow based on the physical (ie, real life/consequences).This is probably easier to understand in a more visual format:
pleasure/hedonism (physical) & fantasy (spiritual) BUT
real life/consequences (physical) & meaning (spiritual)
Now we know, also from the UQ, that pleasure + meaning = happiness. Pleasure without meaning is empty, meaning without pleasure is too grim. While the latter condition is better than the former, ideally, you wouldn't have to choose. But living in reality, while real, can be too drab for many people. They seek to escape into fantasy, which they build up on the pleasure principle.
(This observation is also found under "Happiness".)
The question about reality and perfection is also related to, I think, the problem of evil, since we might say imperfection is a type of evil, as, I'm sure, many people curse their ugly faces, for example, and yet if we hold to the hunch that the desire for perfection is somehow skewed, then might this make it easier to go through life's sufferings, since we could see how imperfection, or at least the acceptance of imperfection, has some merit and virtue? And perhaps we might learn the necessity of imperfection? (This question is also under "Happiness".)