You stop enjoying new RPGs around age 30+

[FreeKaner]

I've written a short novel and short stories in my youth and in young age those sort of activities can be healthy for a youths mental development. Stories are essentially thought experiments that help us make sense of the world. However once you reach adulthood, you gradually start to exercise power instead of just imagine having power. Stories in games can entertain adults, but simple illusion of power is not as satisfying for adults who have a better understanding of it's nature.

This guy is the picture perfect representation of a middle-management employee and their inflated sense of self-worth.

 

[HoboForEternity]

will i be this bitter 5 years from now?

 

[FreeKaner]

As for the topic of the thread, if you cannot enjoy new stimuli you are mentally degenerate. People become mentally degenerate when they are old enough but even in nursing homes you can find people who retain some of their mental vitality.

 

[Grauken]

I've written a short novel and short stories in my youth and in young age those sort of activities can be healthy for a youths mental development. Stories are essentially thought experiments that help us make sense of the world. However once you reach adulthood, you gradually start to exercise power instead of just imagine having power. Stories in games can entertain adults, but simple illusion of power is not as satisfying for adults who have a better understanding of it's nature.

This guy is the picture perfect representation of a middle-management employee and their inflated sense of self-worth.

More like a 12 year old playing grown-up

 

[FreeKaner]

This guy is the picture perfect representation of a middle-management employee and their inflated sense of self-worth.

More like a 12 year old playing grown-up

You wish you had the drive 12-years-old kids have, they wake up every morning with a purpose and enjoyment, every day is an adventure. 12-year-old kids don't try to trick themselves into believing power for power's sake isn't actually escapism.

 

[groundhog]

i am 25 and what is this

Just some bitter people in a whining thread.
Move along, nothing (new) to see here.

The whole codex summed up in two short sentences. I salute you!

 

[thesheeep]

groundhog Next time, I will make it a haiku.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

if you don't drive a loud motorcycle just to annoy everyone in a 5 mile radius then you're doing life wrong tbh

 

[MWaser]

This thread is full of 30 year old boomers.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Shaewaroz]

I just wanted to mention that what you've written in your latest post is phenomenally interesting and I have to apologize for not replying to you in a reasonable time. I read your post, but couldn't formulate a suitable answer on the spot and got preoccupied with other things. Even if time has already made our conversation outdated, I'd still like to engage with the thoughts you so eloquently presented. It's fine if you don't have the time/interest to answer, although your thoughts are always appreciated.

I am still a bit puzzled that you treat "power" and "benefit" as equivalent, though.

You're right to point this out - they're not exactly synonymous, although power acquisition is always beneficial. Having power reserves is always beneficial. As long as power is used in a proper fashion, like you pointed out, it will always create benefits for an individual. I would argue that what constitutes a wise use of power is something that in return generates more power reserves. This might be a point where we have a difference of an opinion and I would very much like to explore it further.

Let me spell out what I think our disagreement is.

You think self-improvement is an infinite concept and that power never stops improving our ability to affect our internal and external reality.
I think self-improvement is an unending process, but that power improves our ability to affect our internal and external reality with diminishing returns.

Perhaps I reply briefly to this concept before getting into deeper waters.

I agree with you here - the returns of power acquisition seem to diminish in a accelerating rate when a person proceeds to dominate his internal and external reality. However to me it seems there are a multitude of different categories of power and all these categories cannot be mastered at once. There are practically infinite amount of skills one can attempt to master - there's simply is not enough time to master but a fraction of all of them. Once one has mastered his immediate power requirements to satisfy the most urgent Maslowian needs, he can direct his focus on other power categories that preferably have the maximum positive impact on one's power base. Let's take an example. The business man from our previous example has become an immensely successful business man and further power acquisition for perfecting this area of his life would only bring heavily diminished returns, as you pointed out. So, indeed, I agree, it would be more beneficial for the business man to direct his focus on something else. But where? He can choose to spent more time with his family, write an autobiography, go the Richard Garriott route by purchasing a ridiculously pricey ticket to the International Space Station just for the heck of it. Etc. I think you'd agree that all these decisions are not equal - each has a very different impact on him. All these decisions are ultimately value judgments and all of them also has an effect on his ability to manage power reserves (for instance during a space trip to International Space Station one's muscle mass will unavoidably deteriorate), his power acquisition ability etc.

This is why I would argue that activities that accumulate the maximum amount of power are ultimately always the best choice for spending one's time. A lengthy vacation in a remote destination CAN very well also be the best way to accumulate power in certain circumstances - during a severe burnout, for instance. In this kind of circumstance gaming CAN also perhaps be the best power acquisition method for a particular person. However I would consider an event where gaming would indeed be de facto the perfect power acquisition method exceedingly rare.

Let me explain. If Spinoza's is the sword that beheads the king of moral relativity, Aristotle's are the tools that till the soil afterward. Spinoza crafted a beautiful argument for the fundamental virtue that all other ethics can build from. Aristotle engaged in practical theorizing about individuals (particular virtues, rational thought, human excellence) and groups (forms of government, proper political engagement). One of Aristotle's tools was the Doctrine of the Mean: "every virtue is a state that lies between two vices, one of excess and the other of deficiency." To be a courageous person is to be the proper distance between a cowardly person (deficiency) and a reckless/impetuous person (excess). To be "properly cooperative" (I don't know a better word) you must be the proper distance between a scrooge (deficiency) and an altruistic fool (excess).

We must continually exert effort to keep ourselves in the fertile valley nestled between deficiency and excess. In that sense self-improvement is a continual and unending process that we engage in for our entire lives, analogous with eating healthy and working out.

Take your example of the business owner. He might be able to entertain any number of possibilities for enhancing his business and he must continually strive to be virtuous (act with integrity, courage, proper cooperation, etc.) in his business so that he makes the best product possible given his goals, fosters the proper relationships with his clients (and/or suppliers), and so on—but these things are means between vices. He must exert the proper amount of effort to act with integrity, and then no more—for any further and he strays into excess. After a certain point expending more energy is not useful. Outside of this analogy, money has diminishing utility as we acquire more of it. A certain amount lets us purchase the things we need (shelter, food, etc.) and a certain amount more allows us to be comfortable in the pursuit of our hobbies, but there is a point where more money does not help you acquire the things you need or can reasonably want, and so spending time acquiring that money is excessive. It is an example of a vice (greed).

In other words, we have to continually maintain the proper amount of power so that we can affect our internal and external reality to the extent that affecting it is useful to us.

The practical consequence of this is that someone who is vicious (cowardly, cruel, lacking a sense of justice, etc.) will have to spend a lot more time and effort moving themselves to the means between deficiency and excess. In your words, I think, they will have to dedicate a lot more of their time to the acquisition of power; their inner character is equivalent to that of a person in poverty who cannot afford for their own basic needs, let alone the things they want.

Aristotelian virtues are habits, or ways of being, not singular actions. To be a courageous person is to be naturally inclined to act courageously due to an internalized rule of behavior. It is to always be drifting toward the mean between vices. This frees a courageous person up to occupy their mind with other things, as they do not, in typical everyday circumstances, need to exert a large amount of effort to be courageous. Though, of course, there are more or less trying circumstances even for properly courageous people. In any case, once you are naturally inclined to act courageously, you ought to expend the effort required to maintain that (e.g. not to allow yourself to entertain cowardly desires or to act on those desires) and no more.

There's just a tremendous amount to discuss here. I try to make my answer a condensed one.

It seems to me your distaste for power acquisition as a guideline for a happy life derived at least partly from your dislike of moral relativism. Do you feel that power acquisition as a guiding principle for life will unavoidably lead to a non-virtuous life? I'm not sure if I would agree if this were the case. To me the realization that all life is a manifestation of power leads to the conclusion that maximum amount of power leads to maximum engagement with life. In my view maximum engagement with life is virtuous. There can be no "excess" of life, therefore there can never be excess of power. Everything that limits our engagement with life is a vise. This is a simplified model, but it's a start. I'm unsure where this kind of view is placed in the spectrum of moral relativism.

Aristotle's model seems to rely heavily on arbitrary, culturally constructed values. This might be the little moral relativist in me writing, but such model seems awfully vulnerable in contemporary Western sociocultural context. I'd call power a truly universal concept - it transcends all cultural boundaries. All cultural constructs are basically machines for power acquisition, redistribution and usage, and therefore they value power over everything else.

Adopting Aristotelian virtues can certainly lead to a satisfying and fulfilling life. How much of it is sociocultural placebo effect is up to interpretation. Moral relativism is not a great alternative either.

Proposition 46, IV

He who lives by the guidance of reason endeavors as far as he can to repay with love or nobility another's hatred, anger, contempt, etc. towards himself.
Proof
All emotions of hatred [for other humans] are bad (Cor.1 Pr.45), and thus he who lives by the guidance of reason will endeavor as far as he can not to be assailed by emotions of hatred (Pr.19,IV), and consequently (Pr.37,IV) he will also endeavor that another should not suffer these same emotions. [...]
Scholium
He who wishes to avenge injuries through reciprocal hatred lives a miserable life indeed. But he who strives to overcome hatred with love is surely fighting a happy and carefree battle. He resists several opponents as easily as one, and stands in least need of fortune's help. Those whom he conquers yield gladly, not through failure of strength but through its increase.


I have mentioned proposition 46 as it suggests the person who pursues his own advantage as reason dictates will use their own strength to change their society.

Perhaps Spinoza regarded hatred as weakness? From power acquisition standpoint I'd say this is the case perhaps 99 % of the time. Hatred and violence always give birth to more hatred and violence. However this might be the reason why ethnic cleansings have been so common in the unfortunate history of mankind - if all members of opposing group are eradicated, the cycle of revenge will stop.

Loving one's enemies is not a practical philosophy. Best case scenario: your enemy will pity you and leave you be. Worst case scenario: he will see your kindness as weakness and exploit that weakness till the end of time. Having power over one's enemy is always preferable.