Insomnia | Forum

And what the fuck is the difference between regular Wikipedia and the "simple" version? Is it for simpletons or something?

OK, so I've been thinking lately that I wanted to write a blog (I don't write them often). I've had several ideas, one of which was an entry about a guy who calls himself "Alex Kierkegaard," who writes the commentary section of a website called "Insomnia." I've always wanted to delve deeper into post-modernism, and this Kierkegaard guy seems to fancy himself a contemporary Baudrillard (based on the two or three commentaries I read at Insomnia).

This brings me to my next point. The description of the Zelda book on amazon promises to consider a few questions concerning Zelda and philosophy. Note the use of the word "consider." Consider does not mean answer, nor does use of the word promise to provide one.

As Bertrand Russell taught, philosophy does not necessarily seek to answer any specific question; philosophy considers questions for the sake of the questions themselves.

If this doesn't appeal to you, then, again, you're likely not so philosophically inclined.

I will be editing a World of Warcraft and Philosophy book sometime in the future, so, if possible, maybe that book can address some of the questions the Zelda book can't. But do remember that no one has read the Zelda book yet!

This book is, in some sense, an attempt to bring the best parts of academia together.

Some might be thinking that the writers are all ivy-leaguers trying to make money by exploiting yet another pop-cultural icon.

One doesn't have to be a philosophy professor to be a thinker.

One of the goals of studying games, I think, is to figure out what it is about us that attracts us to them.

This post was actually an experiment to see how fast I could get banned from insomnia.ac just for having different opinions.

Linking icy articles should really be like debasing the discussion into talk of Hitler and the Nazis. Though icy also talks about Nazis... so.

There are more than a few messages. If we're just talking about survival, the messages dwindle, this is true. But there's also an assumption in the article that nothing in life is meaningful anyway, and I guess if you believe that, jumping off a bridge is a much better option than trying to have a philosophical debate. If survival is the only option, then yes, there aren't many messages, but guess what? Survival isn't the only option. It hasn't been the only option for hundreds of years. As such, thought has changed, not necessarily evolved, the instincts are still there, but people have been able to find meaning for some time now. I now feel that I'm wasting my time, since debating an icy article is somewhat like banging one's head against a wall with a knife attached to it.

Oh, God, I read a few more articles from that insomnia.ac site and that Alex Kierkegaard is a complete idiot. Please tell me that you didn't get the rest of your ideas from that guy, Mr Naruhodo.

There's not a single good analogy there. Every comparison he makes actually disproves his point. I'm suprised that I haven't found an example of Godwin's Law with all the badly written articles there.

That rant on sequels, on art, on RPGs - all good topics, but horrible, horrible opinions. So depressing, and the way it's written in such a dick-ish manner makes me want to hit him. It's like he's just trying to sound smart and doing it loud enough to make people not want to question him.

I think Kierkegaard has written the most intelligent, clearly-written articles about video games on the internet, by far. If you can't see that, well, I don't care. It's not my job to convince you. But I think it's telling that all of you that have criticized him haven't actually deconstructed any points he's made and proven them wrong, but instead just call him an asshole.

Some writers in their manner and stance intentionally provoke challenge and criticism from their readers. Others just invite you to think. Baudrillard's hyperprose demands only that you grunt wide-eyed or bewildered assent. He yearns to have intellectual influence, but must fend off any serious analysis of his own writing, remaining free to leap from one bombastic assertion to the next, no matter how brazen. Your place is simply to buy his books, adopt his jargon, and drop his name wherever possible.