Philosophy Through Video Games

by Jon Cogburn, Mark Silcox

How can Wii Sports teach us about metaphysics?

Can playing World of Warcraft lead to greater self-consciousness?

How can we learn about aesthetics, ethics and divine attributes from
Zork , Grand Theft Auto , and Civilization ?

A variety of increasingly sophisticated video games are rapidly overtaking books, films, and television as America's most popular form of media entertainment. It is estimated that by 2011 over 30 percent of US households will own a Wii console - about the same percentage that owned a television in 1953. In Philosophy Through Video Games, Jon Cogburn and Mark Silcox - philosophers with game industry experience - investigate the aesthetic appeal of video games, their effect on our morals, the insights they give us into our understanding of perceptual knowledge, personal identity, artificial intelligence, and the very meaning of life itself, arguing that video games are popular precisely because they engage with longstanding philosophical problems.

Topics covered

* The Problem of the External World

* Dualism and Personal Identity

* Artificial and Human Intelligence in the Philosophy of Mind

* The Idea of Interactive Art

* The Moral Effects of Video Games

* Games and God's Goodness

Games discussed

Madden Football , Wii Sports , Guitar Hero , World of Warcraft , Sims Online , Second Life , Baldur's Gate , Knights of the Old Republic , Elder Scrolls , Zork , EverQuest Doom , Halo 2 , Grand Theft Auto , Civilization , Mortal Kombat , Total War , Black and White , Aidyn Chronicles

Genres: Philosophy, Games, Video Games

216 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2008

Reviews

[Muath Aziz · Rating 3 out of 5]

You need to be familiar with both philosophy and video games to read this book. First two chapters were a hard read, but it became smooth after that. I have many issues with the arguments, but I enjoyed reading the book, thought provocative.

[Chris Aylott · Rating 2 out of 5]

Most books like this tend to be along the lines of "here's some neat science that I can loosely tie into an episode of your favorite teevee show!" Which I find pretentious and annoying, but that probably says more about me than the books.

Fortunately, this book goes in a different direction. There's a little bit of spoon-fed philosophy, but unlike a "science of Star Trek" book, there are some thought-provoking discussions on how philosophies of perception and learning can explain how video games work.

I'm especially interested in the idea of how enactivism can explain how we interact with video games and identify with our avatars. The idea that our consciousness depends on not just our mind and senses, but our bodies and the objects we manipulate -- I like the implications of that. To me, it means that you can make a better game by focusing on what a player can do at every step, not on what they see or hear. I'd very much like to see how that sensibility can change the games I'm working on now.

[Katja · Rating 3 out of 5]

Philosophy and video games – together at last! Cogburn & Silcox use video-gaming scenarios to demonstrate some of philosophy’s biggest conundrums. What do role-playing games tell us about our identity? What does the Nintendo Wii reveal about the nature of perception? Can God games teach us about ethics? If this sounds interesting to you, you’ll have a great time here. I think the book fell down a bit in later chapters when discussing gameplay and AI programming, as it gets quite technical and strays pretty far from the point of the discussion – I’m a philosopher, not a computer programmer! But on the whole, this is a very enjoyable and thought-provoking read for anyone (like me) who fits into the niche of philosophy/video game nerd.

[Allan Savage]

Clearly this book is intended for professional academics. However, it can serve as a point of departure to introduce anyone knowledgeable about the gaming phenomenon but lacking a philosophical background the book serves it purpose well in this regard.

I came across the book by happenstance and was captured by the author’s approach from the beginning especially since I am totally unfamiliar with the genesis of the contemporary gaming phenomenon. In light of gaming’s popular interest, I did expect more than one review for the book on Amazon. But perhaps that speaks to the status of philosophy in contemporary North American culture. In their Preface the authors note that not all individuals are philosophically inclined and accordingly state that they draw upon the resources of Western philosophy, i.e., the analytical tradition. Although, as I read through the chapters there seemed to be moments when a phenomenological understanding (not phenomenalism) was given some expression. This review is from the point of view of a phenomenological philosopher and hopefully my observations will bring out some valued differing approaches to the interpretation between the analytic and phenomenological (Continental) ways of thinking. Naturally, not all that could be said, has been said in this review.

Chapter One, I, Player: The Puzzle of Personal Identity (MMORPGs and Virtual Communities) discusses personal identity through statements about the person, rather than inquiring into the constitution of the person as a living organism. The authors “focus on issues about the metaphysical status of the self that arise specifically in the status of video games.” For the phenomenologist, the problem here is the same for the analytical philosopher, i.e., that the metaphysical status of the self does not equate to the person. Rather than on an epistemological approach to this problem the phenomenologist properly focuses on human consciousness as a psychological understanding but interpreted philosophically. That is to say, where the epistemologist encounters a puzzle in life, the phenomenologist encounters the mystery of life. While both approaches are grounded in individual experience, a Hellenic-grounded interpretive philosophy may not be the only view point for a satisfactory personal understanding. A phenomenological philosophy of consciousness interprets the individual’s “life in progress,” not a static “state” in life. Gaming has the potential to reveal a philosophical anthropology of the person, not only a philosophy of human functional abilities, it seems to me.

Chapter Two, The Game Inside the Mind, the Mind Inside the Game (The Nintendo Wii Gaming Console) discusses the “tools” of gaming in light of the unsatisfactory theory of phenomenalism. The authors suggest that enactivism as a theory is the better approach, thus remaining within the Hellenic epistemological tradition which attempts to ascertain the manner in which experience represents the way things are. The phenomenologist attempts the same to disclose the way things are in the experience of the person, but through the medium of consciousness, not the classical perspective of knowledge. Hence, the phenomenologist (a philosopher of the mind) attempts to transcend the limitations of analytic philosophy by identifying a different starting point for reflection, rather than develop further the scientific one that remains dominant in Western culture. The phenomenological starting point of conscious interpretation has been influenced more by Continental philosophy than by scientific methodology.

Chapter Three, “Realistic Blood and Gore”: Do Violent Games Make Violent Gamers? (First Person Shooters) discusses the heritage of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophical understandings in approaching the design of games, particularly with respect to violence. The authors’ Hellenic and thus Christian interpretation makes their conclusions and preferences predictable concerning the ethical norms to be considered when designing games. (I wonder: Is there any significance to be drawn that Chapter Three ends with a “Concluding Homily,” and Chapter Seven with “The Games We Choose;” whereas all the other chapters, save Chapter Four which has no “Conclusion,” end simply with “Conclusions?”)

Chapter Four, Games and God’s Goodness (World-Builder and Tycoon Games) clearly reveals the traditional approach to understanding God within Western culture with all its attending problems and contradictions. The authors, being analytical philosophers, accept reason as the faculty that specifies the living organism as a person – an epistemological perspective rooted in classical philosophy. Many phenomenologists however, consider possessing a self-reflexive function of consciousness as specifying the living organism as a person – a psychological perspective considered philosophically, not scientifically. Here the is focus is on the person; not on principles or propositions of knowledge. Terminating their discussion, the lesson to be learned the authors state is that to understand God even as “a being with unimaginably vast knowledge, power, and goodness, decisions about when and how to interfere with the natural order…,” would have to be atrociously difficult and demanding. The phenomenologist does not understand such difficulties arising from God interfering with the natural order, but such difficulties arise from ourself-conscious relationships within the natural order.

Chapter Five, The Metaphysics of Interactive Art (Puzzle and Adventure Games) hints, as I see it, at a phenomenological understanding which is not evident in the classical heritage of Western philosophy. That is, the creative participation of the observer in what is observed is a novel perspective with no antecedent in Hellenic philosophy. This changes the overall paradigm from a purely Hellenic one, where Fate rules the day, to a phenomenological one, where humans contribute to the determination of their future. The authors speak of “The Objectivity Argument,” which is an active process and not to be confused with “objectivism” which is an idea. [When philosophizing in English, individuals often confuse “- ity” words with “-ism” words. Although addressing the same phenomenon, they do not always mean the same. Consider this statement: “I respect your nationality, but I am suspicious of your nationalism.” In short, realism does not capture all of reality.] Such distinction is often not clearly made or understood by contemporary philosophers. The objectivity argument attaches to the person, not an external standard. In fact, I can learn much from understanding “your personal psychology” (p. 95). In short, for the phenomenologist intersubjectivity (an activity) replaces external standards (objective ideas). Drawing on Stanley Fish the authors speak of a player’s actions and decisions understood as “coconstituting the work of art” (p.100).

Chapter Six, Artificial and Human Intelligence (Single-Player RPGs) treats of AI in the context of time. Predictably, a Hellenist approach to time is accepted without question. That is, time is linear, not cyclic. Philosophically cyclic time has no beginning, or end, as linear time does, hence a cyclic understanding of time is favoured by phenomenologists. As well, the correspondence theory of truth is accepted as the norm. In explaining the development of CRUM (Computational-Representational Understanding of Mind), it is presumed that the rules of the English language are operative and these have contributed the basis of “computer language.” The discussion of the phenomenon is undertaken from this perspective. Given that the ontic culture of the West and not any phenomenological culture has given rise to computer science, this is not surprising. Acknowledging that the “flexible adaptive behavior characteristic of human cognition,” to use the authors’ words, is an activity, not a fixed reality, the authors then enter on a discussion of “fixing” the content. For the phenomenological philosopher content is dynamic, not fixed. Flexible adaptive behavior has not, to date at least, been replicated by computers. At present, phenomenologists do not hold out any expectation that a non-living entity ever will spontaneously “adapt” itself to its environment. The “I’m sorry, Dave I can’t do that” remark of 2001 Space Odyssey fame remains in the imagination and as a puzzle before the analytical philosopher. It presents as a possible mystery for the phenomenologist, who questions the “fixity” of content.

The final chapter, Epilogue: Video Games and the Meaning of Life sums up the whole thrust of the author’s purpose which, as I understand it, is to investigate the games phenomenon as a means to introduce philosophical thinking. This enterprise has considered only the Western analytical perspective, which is not surprising since it is highly doubtful that the computer phenomenon could have arisen in any context but within the Western scientific tradition with its roots in Hellenic philosophy. This is similar to the notion that atheism could only have arisen with the Christian culture, (due to scientific criticism) and not in any phenomenological culture. As it reads the whole book, to my mind, is an exercise in the “fine tuning” approach to classical philosophy through gaming. But there is more. The authors remark: “And perhaps, therefore, philosophical questions about the meaning of life are better re-phrased as questions about what we are to do with ourselves after we have finished all of our basic, unalterable biological “functions” (p. 154). To shift the understanding of gaming as disclosing a phenomenological philosophy, I would suggest that this to do question could be replaced with a who am I question inquiring into the meaning of life. That is, the awareness of the time spent gaming is not as revealing philosophically in the contemporary culture as who is gaming, it would seem to me.

[David Blanar · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted to like this book but was significantly disappointed. It did provide some broad strokes philosophy against some key themes in the video games industry but sadly there's not much within I was able to take away. There's enough graft to justify the effort but this feels as though it's the first salvo in a larger discussion.

[Frank Kool · Rating 3 out of 5]

Philosophy Through Video Games? Why yes, I'd love to!

Something that readers should know before reading this book: this is not about the philosophical content of specific games. If you start reading this expecting, for example, an introduction to postmodernism through plot elements of the Metal Gear Solid games, or a comparative analysis of Dostoevsky and Silent Hill 2, then you may be in for disappointment. Rather, PTVG deals with game mechanics and genres. For example, it takes the behavior of NCP's in role-playing games as the starting point for an exploration of artificial intelligence. In another chapter, the Nintendo Wii remote is the focal point for a discussion about the merits of various psychological theories on perception.

To speak in gaming lingo, the difficulty setting of the book goes back and forth between Easy Mode and Very Hard. Some segments you will swiftly go through, but you might want to take a seat for the chapter about the mathematical/logical basis for computational machines.
At times, the writing can seem a bit defensive, as if a hint of frustration of the authors found its way into the book, most notably when countering the notion that gaming is an adolescent form of escapism. There is also a bit of vernacular language ("out of whack", "fifty bucks", et cetera) that sometimes breaks the otherwise academic style.

Still, PTVG is a solid text that uses a wonderful form of art and entertainment as an entry point into the great thinkers of history. It is a work of philosophy that gaming deserves.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much of philosophy depends on where you begin, and so it is here. Fans of video games of a somewhat cerebral type will appreciate this book's forthright defense of the legitimacy of video games and role playing in general, against the general tide of philosophers whose view of playacting has been nearly uniformly harsh and negative, and the authors have some thoughtful words to say about the dilemmas faced by those who play world-building games where the player acts like some form of deity, and the Wii makes a worthwhile contribution to the debate between enactivism and phenomenalism, which appears to be settling towards enactivism by showing that greater realism in terms of muscle memory can trump the greater visual realism of other gaming platforms. Likewise, this book also has much to contribute to a discussion of why many games feature such poor imitations of human interaction because of the limitation of computers operating under the sort of principles discussed decades ago by people like Alan Turing [1]. That said, much of what this book says depends for its validity on one's perspective, on how one comes to the book, and what the authors say depends on their own perspectives, which in some cases are as naive as what they criticize in others.

In terms of its contents, this book consists of six chapters and then an epilogue that demonstrate how video games address and deal with some of the most important questions in philosophy. First, the authors tackle MMORPGs like World of Warcraft and virtual communities like Second Life to ask questions of identity between the avatar and the person behind the character on the screen, which turns out to be full of intriguing questions. Then the author examines the question of how it is that people deal with reality through the case study of the Nintendo Wii, looking at muscle memory and the fact that our view of the world depends on more than just our sense data. The third chapter takes on the question of whether violent games make violent games, with the determination that with few exceptions, violent games have tended to reduce actual violence by providing a vent for hostility but that the lack of historical knowledge about game settings and who are good and bad guys is potentially problematic. The fourth chapter examines the origin of ethics and views of God's goodness and power by looking at world-builder and tycoon games like Civilization and Total War. The fifth chapter examines the metaphysics of interactive art, showing that changing the order of areas played in a game like Myst gives a player a much different perspective on how the game operates, and that the way that a player approaches a game often determines the sort of game he plays. The sixth chapter looks at role playing games to deal with the subject of artificial and human intelligence and wrestles with the limitations of computers because of the undetermined nature of so much human communication, which computers seem unable to deal with. The book closes with an epilogue looking at video games and the meaning of life, and the fact that in many ways our human lives can resemble the quests of role playing games, making such games useful for learning how to live better [2].

It is clear, though, from reading this book with a different worldview than the authors, that the authors think they are far wiser than they really are, which in a book like this presents a major failure. The authors are quick to speak negatively about Christian philosophers who presuppose various biblical truths and textual interpretations, but the authors do a lot of presupposing of their own when it comes to their evolutionary perspective. Moreover, their approach is self-contradictory in the same way that they both denigrate others for what they do themselves, and that they take aim at relativism on the one hand, but demonstrate no consistent source for ethics themselves that differs in any meaningful way from relativism. At best they can agree that ethics are complicated, that there are many things that philosophers do not understand and disagree about, but they end up being no better, and in fact, sometimes a great deal worse, than the views they enjoy criticizing. In the end, this is a book that demonstrates the intellectual seriousness of video game design and playing, and defends the legitimacy of video games from a worldly, intellectual perspective, but it offers little worthwhile guidance on the most serious questions of life, largely on account of the defectiveness of the worldview of the authors themselves. This book is therefore a partial success, but one that ought to be appreciated by those who enjoy video games and wish to do so without any pangs of guilt that, so long as they play in moderation and not to excess, they are missing out on the important aspects of our existence.

[1] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

[2] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress...

[Bradley Axe · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s an odd one. Pop-Philosophy that’s proper Philosophy and not overly trying to appeal to non-philosophers. The kind of thing ex-Philosophy students who didn’t pursue the field would love.