Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Random Bystander" data-source="post: 6094478" data-attributes="member: 6702095">While that is true, I do not believe a person can aim for two purposes to the same extent. If they come into conflict and cannot both be followed (theoretically speaking), one will take priority over the other. If one or the other is chosen based on which is more interesting that day, I propose that the theoretical subjects' purpose was not either of the activities, but to fulfill some other purpose, such as entertainment; the activities are among the selection, or perhaps the only selection, of methods under consideration.But I might be completely wrong on the whole thing. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Each of us has our own limited perspective, and from our own limited perspective, our actions, thoughts and beliefs generally make sense and are internally consistent with our own experiences. That's one reason why I sometimes post against the flow of a thread, or at an angle to it. Sometimes I've learned I'm wrong, and been better for it; sometimes I gain further confirmation that I'm right, or that I've not been proven wrong by the arguments at hand.To follow on to your argument, sometimes there's multiple sets of reasons, purposes and methods in play; I alluded to this in the longpost. And sometimes one set is the reason, method or purpose for another. For example, &quot;In gaming the debate, my reason is that it keeps me from becoming too&nbsp; involved, my purpose is to have fun and my method is to remain within&nbsp; the rules outlined.&quot; is also a method I've chosen for this debate.So perhaps, now that I've had a chance to explore my own thoughts as well, my objection, more generally, is to turning &quot;play&quot; into &quot;serious play&quot;, due to the vital role &quot;play&quot; has. So objecting to deep philosophy in games turns into something more nuanced.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Random Bystander, post: 6094478, member: 6702095"] While that is true, I do not believe a person can aim for two purposes to the same extent. If they come into conflict and cannot both be followed (theoretically speaking), one will take priority over the other. If one or the other is chosen based on which is more interesting that day, I propose that the theoretical subjects' purpose was not either of the activities, but to fulfill some other purpose, such as entertainment; the activities are among the selection, or perhaps the only selection, of methods under consideration. But I might be completely wrong on the whole thing. :) Each of us has our own limited perspective, and from our own limited perspective, our actions, thoughts and beliefs generally make sense and are internally consistent with our own experiences. That's one reason why I sometimes post against the flow of a thread, or at an angle to it. Sometimes I've learned I'm wrong, and been better for it; sometimes I gain further confirmation that I'm right, or that I've not been proven wrong by the arguments at hand. To follow on to your argument, sometimes there's multiple sets of reasons, purposes and methods in play; I alluded to this in the longpost. And sometimes one set is the reason, method or purpose for another. For example, "In gaming the debate, my reason is that it keeps me from becoming too involved, my purpose is to have fun and my method is to remain within the rules outlined." is also a method I've chosen for this debate. So perhaps, now that I've had a chance to explore my own thoughts as well, my objection, more generally, is to turning "play" into "serious play", due to the vital role "play" has. So objecting to deep philosophy in games turns into something more nuanced. [/QUOTE]

Verification