-  [JOIN IRC!]


[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Subject   (reply to 486)
Message
File
Password  (for post and file deletion)
¯\(°_O)/¯
  • Supported file types are: BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 400x400 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 267 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2023-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

File 13871546129.jpg - (532.33KB , 1600x915 , 1307544828878.jpg )
486 No. 486
I wish to bring to your attention a game based around philosophy.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/625356

I found this game incredibly frustrating, as it is closer to some kind of puzzle game than a "philosophical game". While certainly pioneering and a breath of fresh air, I can't help but feel that it was rushed and not given enough thought. I came to the conclusion that the search for an answer [to the question of morality] is not attainable, and that it would be immoral to search for one for various reasons. Yet this is not the conclusion you are "meant" to find.

I hope that you all do not take too much offense to a video game being discussed on this board, but I'd like to hear, among other things, how you would have wanted to approach arguments posed in the game.
>> No. 489
It's annoying that my logical argument against Kant, that there can be no such thing as a categorical imperative when all morals are intention based. For example, Kant describes the act of lying as something that must always be avoided, but is it good to tell a child that his drawing is poor? Conversely, is it always good to save a dying man's life if he wishes to die?

I can't work out what statement and challenge it wants me to link up, and it won't let me have any of those.


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason