Quote from: Pseudoephedrineas close to us as Foucault and the New Wittgensteinians (Cora Diamond, Sabina Lovibond, John McDowell, etc.).

Yes, and you need go no further from us than Foucault to also see the practical living consequences of that sort of philosophy.  I mean fuck, you really want your moral compass to be a dude who spent  the last years of his life engaged in sadomasochistic sex acts trying to intentionally infect as many people with AIDS as he possibly could?

RPGPundit

Where did you that BS from, Fox TV? The Washington Times?

Quote from: Garry GGaming playstyles have fuck all to do with morality and I'd go as far as to say that the problem with playstyle discussions arises from people who try to attach moral value to a playstyle.

That's the ticket. Play style is an aesthetic issue (as Akrasia notes), not a moral one. No one play style is morally superior or inferior to others, only aesthetically (and, of course, that's a matter of personal taste).

What we have here is somebody who refuses to see all play styles other than his own as valid or (in some cases) even existing -- and since such a position can't be shored up with logic, it falls to hyperbole.  

That said. . .

If anybody here truly believes that game play preferences are deeply rooted in moral dilemma, I don't think that they need any more fantasy in their life (discussing it is one thing, believing it is another thing entirely).

[Edit: That said, people are free to believe what they like -- just remember that some beliefs will earn you a lot of weird looks.]

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhere did you that BS from, Fox TV? The Washington Times?

Try that infamous right-wing rag, the New York Times; also Prof. Raymond Tallis,  criminologist Daniel Maier-Katkin, and of course Foucault biographer James Miller.


RPGPundit

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhere did you that BS from, Fox TV? The Washington Times?

Uh, that's Fox News.  If you are going to toss out tired left-wing cliches, at least get them right.

Quote from: AkrasiaWow.  :raise:  It's rather sloppy to think that a particular position has been 'discredited' simply because you happen to oppose it and are familiar with a few thinkers similarly opposed.  (For what it is worth, I can assure you that if you think that the views of Foucault and the 'New Wittgensteinians' are representative of current views dominant in value theory within analytical philosophy, then you are deeply mistaken.  [McDowell is taken quite seriously, but his views are certainly not 'dominant'.]  There exists no groundswell in favour of abolishing the distinction between aesthetics and morality.)

Sorry mate, but that's a strawman. I claimed that distinction was under attack from many different positions, generally for good reasons, and had been for a long time. I didn't make any of the claims you ascribe to me in the above paragraph, and I wouldn't.

QuoteThe core commitments of 'Enlightenment liberalism' -- viz. a commitment to free rational inquiry, individual freedom, and so forth -- remain very much 'in favour' in many circles (e.g. most persons working in moral and political philosophy within the English speaking world these days).  It is a pity that these core commitments are not more in favour throughout the world outside of academia.

Your admission then, is that it's not really a part of our world anymore. I would agree. Rather than cry over spilt milk, I'd rather look at new ways of constructing a groundwork for rationality and freedom that don't lead to the problems of the modern era (technocracy and the atomisation of the individual, especially).

It's entirely possible to do so. Habermas has done tons of work on this very subject, showing how norms are constructed without requiring us to buy into the Enlightenment's conceptions of persons, rationality, society and happiness and their attendant aporias. Foucault, in his later work on "the hermeneutics of the self" and the "kalos bios" also points a way to a possible conception of humanity as some other than autonomous appetitive machines with rationality tacked on as a perk.

QuoteAnd while the 'Enlightenment' is considered a historical period, it can also be understood as something more fundamental: a way of living and thinking. In the words of Immanuel Kant (a rather important philosopher, still taken seriously today, who was in favour of distinguishing aesthetic questions from moral ones):

"Enlightenment is Man's emergence from self-imposed tutelage, that is to say, from the inability to use the intellect without guidance by another. It is self-imposed if its cause does not lie in a deficiency of the intellect but of the courage and determination to use it autonomously. Sapere aude! Have the courage to think! is therefore the motto of the Enlightenment."

I've always been rather fond of that quote.  

Voltaire once said, "A pithy quote proves nothing."

The quote picks out nothing particularly unique about the Enlightenment. The Greeks had "the courage to think", as did the scores of heretics excommunicated by the Catholic Church. The ancient Cynics and the mediaeval saints lived in line with what they thought was rationally founded.

"What is Enlightenment?" is one of Kant's worst works because he departs from his ordinary sobriety to fill the page with bafflegab unfit for a footnote in Critique of Practical Reason.

As for Kant's aesthetic and moral theories, they're problematic. Saying that he's "still taken seriously today" elides the layers of interpretation, refinement and development that lay over any reading of Kant, and especially any defense of his ideas by a modern philosopher.

These two ideas - of the autonomous subject(ivity) and of the aesthetic-moral divide are related, of course. I think Kant's theory of aesthetics is wrong precisely because he does start from the premise that aesthetic judgements are fundamentally subjective, rather than being cognitive or logical. This is why they differ in character from moral judgements.

If we erode the idea of what "subjectivity" is, so that it's not the transcendental ego, then we undermine the idea that being fundamentally subjective is a meaningful distinction. The erosion occurs through an adequate theory of how selves are constituted as immanent, historical objects, and how they interrelate with one another through communication of various sorts (Habermas and Foucault, once again).

@JimBob:

You got me wrong. I didn´t say I am quittin teh internetz.
I said, I will not disguise the real problems anymore. Either I bow out, when I´m not up to it, or I´m debating about what´s actually at hand.

On morality:

I hold the strong conviction, that I don´t want to be part of a romantic emotion-trader-circle in my RPGs.
I also believe, that Entertainment that is intellectually challenging is superiour to Entertainment that is mainly emotionally reassuring.

I can´t see the aesthetics in that.

EDIT: To illustrate further, in my eyes the discussion should not be pussyfooting around the merits of railroading, but about the core of the problem. Is this game mainly emotionally reassuring? Does this game offer an intellectual stimulus?

Quote from: RPGPunditTry that infamous right-wing rag, the New York Times; also Prof. Raymond Tallis,  criminologist Daniel Maier-Katkin, and of course Foucault biographer James Miller.


RPGPundit

Miller's biography is sensationalistic drek that relies heavily on third-party rumour and conjecture reported as fact. He is also notorious for misquoting Foucault to prove his own point about Foucault's life being some sort of Nietzschean experiment.

Raymond Tallis and the NYT article I think you're referring to rely on Miller's biography.

http://www.michel-foucault.com/tls.html by Clare O'Farrell, a Foucault expert.

I can't find a free copy of Daniel Maier-Katkin's only article on Foucault, since I don't have a subscription to the relevant criminology journal, but I'd be surprised if he had another source than Miller's biography.

Settembrini, I think that in addition to other issues, you're not using language well in these threads, which is impeding communication. For instance, when you say "I'm done with playstyle discussions," and you really mean "I'm done discussing playstyle in this one way, and will now only discuss playstyle in this other way," people, get confused. Likewise, when you insist that "moral" values are the defining factor in discussion of play, and you don't appear to mean by "moral" what most folks reading mean by it, that further confuses.

I submit that when you say "moral" you mean "value judgment." Which isn't necessarily "moral." I can make the value judgment that "Commando" starring Arnold Schwarzenegger is a terrible movie, without saying that the movie is immoral. I can say "I don't like Impressionism" without saying the art is immoral. But on the other hand, I'm clearly not making a neutral statement. I'm clearly judging the movie or the art or the music or the gaming. That, it seems to me, is the distinction you're getting at.

Saying "moral" is just impeding discussion.

I don't think I have much else to add to this thread, but I thought I'd try to help.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: SettembriniI hold the strong conviction, that I don´t want to be part of a romantic emotion-trader-circle in my RPGs.
I also believe, that Entertainment that is intellectually challenging is superiour to Entertainment that is mainly emotionally reassuring.

I can´t see the aesthetics in that.

So, now you are finally doing what you claim the Swine have been doing for years. It doesn't surprise me, I mean we all love our own playstyles and some of us, make the mistake of thinking our way is superior - nevermind morally - to how others play. That's one of the roots of elitism. But I do, find it funny, that after all this time, you come to this conclusion. You should have just spoken honestly from the beginning.

QuoteEDIT: To illustrate further, in my eyes the discussion should not be pussyfooting around the merits of railroading, but about the core of the problem. Is this game mainly emotionally reassuring? Does this game offer an intellectual stimulus?

I'm goin' to get a lot of flack for this but...railroading done right could either be emotionally reassuring or intellectually reassuring (to use Sett's new found Forge think -fuck, damn stupid terminology) because done right the players would never know they were being railroaded. :shrug: It happens sometimes.

Regards,
David R

Sett can take his value judgements and shove them in his ear.

Or maybe his rear.

I'm not sure yet.

both

QuoteI submit that when you say "moral" you mean "value judgment."

Isn´t that the same? I think my english might really not be up to that level of discussion.

@RedFox: Okay, I´m an idiot. That doesn´t take away the underlying judgemental nature of all discussions on playstyles. It´s just there, live with it.

Quote from: SettembriniIsn´t that the same?

No.

Regards,
David R

QuoteI'm goin' to get a lot of flack for this but...railroading done right could either be emotionally reassuring or intellectually reassuring (to use Sett's new found Forge think -fuck, damn stupid terminology) because done right the players would never know they were being railroaded. :shrug: It happens sometimes.

YES! You got it!
Discussing railroading isn´t leading anywhere. Of course railroading is associated with rather bad things, but to equate bad things with railroading leads to bad communication.
We have to discuss the values that are at stake!

If you eliminate player input, what do you achieve as a DM?
Do you use it to realize your power fantasy?
Do you use it to transport emotions?
What kind of emotions?
Do you railroad because you are lazy?
Do you railroad because players are lazy?
What kind of enjoyment is it?
Do you condone this kind of enkoyment?