EPTor in other words: what's "near"?
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 287
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
or in other words: what's "near"? | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
| ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
| ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
I enjoy playing Broodwar. I enjoy playing with my Friends. My Friends don't enjoy playing Broodwar. Which is more morally correct: Be true to yourself, and play BW alone. Be true to your friends, and play not-BW together. Be selfish and force your friends to play BW? | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On June 16 2015 06:06 TMagpie wrote: Here is something I've been struggling with. I enjoy playing Broodwar. I enjoy playing with my Friends. My Friends don't enjoy playing Broodwar. Which is more morally correct: Be true to yourself, and play BW alone. Be true to your friends, and play not-BW together. Be selfish and force your friends to play BW? You can do both of the first two options (as for the third, forcing someone to do something is rarely a good idea) | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18285 Posts
On June 16 2015 06:06 TMagpie wrote: Here is something I've been struggling with. I enjoy playing Broodwar. I enjoy playing with my Friends. My Friends don't enjoy playing Broodwar. Which is more morally correct: Be true to yourself, and play BW alone. Be true to your friends, and play not-BW together. Be selfish and force your friends to play BW? Trololololol. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11825 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 16 2015 06:28 Simberto wrote: Unless you ONLY enjoy playing Broodwar, that should not be a problem. Just find another game that both you and your friends enjoy. The issue is not options, it time. If you only play 1 night a week, and your friend wants to play games, how do you allocate between personal fulfillment vs social fulfillment if you don't have time for both. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On June 16 2015 06:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: The issue is not options, it time. If you only play 1 night a week, and your friend wants to play games, how do you allocate between personal fulfillment vs social fulfillment if you don't have time for both. Depends on what you value more, personal or social pleasure. Maybe alternate each week? | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On June 16 2015 06:39 OtherWorld wrote: Depends on what you value more, personal or social pleasure. Maybe alternate each week? The decision on a week to week basis is easy to make since the price is so small. What I am asking is about which is more philosophically correct. Your option of switching back and forth is what most people choose by compromising both party's desired fulfillment you minimize the loss of fulfillment from any one party involved by spreading the unhappiness to both. Is that something morally correct to do? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11825 Posts
| ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On June 16 2015 06:56 Simberto wrote: This is not really an ethics question. You are talking about deciding how to spend your free time, time that you had previously already decided to use for some frivolous entertainment. None of your two possibilities have any real impact onto anything relevant, and thus you should decide by which of the two you would enjoy more, possible considering the fact that if you never do anything with your friends, they will at some point stop being your friends. How frivolous the actions are shouldn't matter to the decision. Would it really change that much if the options were something more severe than playing videogames? For example: if we could only spend 1 day each week curing a disease, and he wants to cure cancer and i want to cure influenza--the dynamic doesn't change just because the stakes are higher. Its still the question of which is more important, personal feelings versus social feelings and how much of each should be sacrificed. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18285 Posts
On June 16 2015 07:04 TMagpie wrote: How frivolous the actions are shouldn't matter to the decision. Would it really change that much if the options were something more severe than playing videogames? For example: if we could only spend 1 day each week curing a disease, and he wants to cure cancer and i want to cure influenza--the dynamic doesn't change just because the stakes are higher. Its still the question of which is more important, personal feelings versus social feelings and how much of each should be sacrificed. Of course it matters. In the latter case you should obviously spend your time doing that which has the greatest chance to help as many people as possible. In other words, an oncologist should not fuck around trying to cure influenza and a virologist should not bother with most types of cancer. If you are neither, then you hav some idea about what you can do that will do the most good, including what you want to do: being motivated makes you better at your job, and if you cannot be motivated when trying to cure the flu, but cancer motivates you, then try to cure cancer. Group dynamics only play a part in whether you can do more good together or separately. As opposed to in the former case where my only answer can be: NOBODY cares. The golden rule is irrelevant, as is any other philosophy on the matter, because there is no moral choice in maximizing your fun. Oh there is. Fuck you and your egotistical computer games. Go outside and plant trees, clean hobos or do something else useful. | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On June 16 2015 07:10 Acrofales wrote: Of course it matters. In the latter case you should obviously spend your time doing that which has the greatest chance to help as many people as possible. In other words, an oncologist should not fuck around trying to cure influenza and a virologist should not bother with most types of cancer. If you are neither, then you hav some idea about what you can do that will do the most good, including what you want to do: being motivated makes you better at your job, and if you cannot be motivated when trying to cure the flu, but cancer motivates you, then try to cure cancer. Group dynamics only play a part in whether you can do more good together or separately. As opposed to in the former case where my only answer can be: NOBODY cares. The golden rule is irrelevant, as is any other philosophy on the matter, because there is no moral choice in maximizing your fun. Oh there is. Fuck you and your egotistical computer games. Go outside and plant trees, clean hobos or do something else useful. So what is important is the conclusion of the choice and not the morality or logic of the choice? So long as the ends are just, the means are unimportant. Interesting perspective, thank you. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18285 Posts
On June 16 2015 07:57 TMagpie wrote: So what is important is the conclusion of the choice and not the morality or logic of the choice? So long as the ends are just, the means are unimportant. Interesting perspective, thank you. Not what I said, but if it ends this discussion and gets us back to discussing how to transport our oceans to the moon, then a wholehearted YES! | ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/msPATD6.png) | ||
|
thirtyapm
521 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On June 16 2015 06:06 TMagpie wrote: Here is something I've been struggling with. I enjoy playing Broodwar. I enjoy playing with my Friends. My Friends don't enjoy playing Broodwar. Which is more morally correct: Be true to yourself, and play BW alone. Be true to your friends, and play not-BW together. Be selfish and force your friends to play BW? The Imperialistic option: Improve your friends by forcing them to play BW. As your race. + Show Spoiler + But seriously, I hate dealing with the fact that most of my friends are dirty casuals. I mean, I am a sucky tryhard, so no brag, but I like playing hard games. I've managed to get a few into Heroes, which is an acceptable medium-ground, but still feel the need to play SC/DkS on my own to feel like I'm actually playing games. Then I crack open some old-school game and try to play without exploits (X-Com without MC anyone? Diablo without cheesy spell spam?) and realize that Starcraft isn't that hardcore. Then I retire to a monastery for the rest of my days, living out a life of humility and service. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
Someone who can learn how to do something fast, but ultimately doesn't understand the mechanics behind it. OR Someone who has a good understanding of the mechanics behind what you're doing, but has a hard time putting that knowledge to use. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11825 Posts
So i assume you mean something like carpentry, where the carpenter probably doesn't have a whole lot of theoretical knowledge about the physics of what he is doing, but he is able to make a nice table, while a material physicist might understand all about how the molecules of the saw interact with those of the wood, and the wood ones with each other, etc..., but if he tried to make a table it would still be a very shitty table? In which case the question of course is if you want to have a table, or do research. | ||
| ||
