Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

That's actually true for a lot of countries, like France.

[Solifuge]

I enjoyed Voltaire's brief cameo, and Thomas Hobbs intro was flipping incredible. But yeah, surprisingly sneaky presentation of educational material. This could be a useful piece of review material for Philosophy 101... and I think people could learn a bit about proper techniques to use in a debate too.

I'm sad that "Your Face Is Ugly" wasn't worked in as a valid argument at some point... like "Why does the Arbiter wear a mask? He only believes he has to wear one because his face is looks like a baboon's backside."

[Vector]

I never tried it.  If I play again, Hobbes is getting the full treatment.

(I also sort of wonder if Mills would have a cool segment with more of Ari's fangirling)

[freeformschooler]

I particularly liked the part with the hypothetical world where innocent until proven guilty is not accepted.

"Might make an interesting game, though."

I tip my hat to the creator for that.

[Brotato]

I really enjoyed this game.  My major problem with it was trying to figure out which Statement to use the correct Correction on.  Besides that it was really pretty fun, if a little easy, considering I never died.

[freeformschooler]

Wow, the last debate was really easy. Game was truly educational, too. Never even heard of Intentionalism before now.

Spoiler: Major spoilers about the last debate (click to show/hide)

Was it ever revealed what the original theory Socrates "found" was? Or was intentionally left unrevealed?

[Sensei]

It was intentionally unrevealed, because A) it was wrong anyway and B) they probably didn't want to commit to something that would characterize Socrates, and existing historical figure, in much of a new way.

[Solifuge]

Spoiler: I like how tongue-in-cheek the game is (click to show/hide)

Though I called the ending, there were moments that genuinely surprised me. For instance, the sudden shift in tone right after the first debate. And the twist that followed when they announced that my next opponent was going to be Nietzsche. I did not see that coming. But it was a great way to bring it all together.

This is Fan Fiction done right... or whatever the equivalent of Fan Fiction is for Video Games. It respects what made people love the original, while also bringing something new to the table. Very well done.

[scrdest]

It was intentionally unrevealed, because A) it was wrong anyway and B) they probably didn't want to commit to something that would characterize Socrates, and existing historical figure, in much of a new way.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

When Arbitercrates started laughing like a madman, I assumed it would turn out that it would turn out the his answer was the exact same thing you came up with. But nope.

For the non-spoilered part, am I the only person who thinks Kant looks better with the moustache (ending cinematic one)?

[Rakonas]

Yea I find the game weird in how you have to collect ideas to counter argument. And the way you have to ask specific questions about specific things to unlock the discussion... I don't know, it felt unnatural. For the first guy, my own counter argument would have been "there is no proof of the existence of any god", but it wasn't even an option. I had to follow a walkthrough every step of the way except for the tutorial salesmen...

That's pretty seriously silly. You're in an afterlife surrounded by philosophers and you think it makes sense to say something like that? But really I wanted to bring up any of the countless stories of gods doing things abhorrent to human morality, Saturn anyone?

[Lectorog]

You're in an afterlife surrounded by philosophers and you think it makes sense to say something like that?

Yes. It would get them to propose proofs of gods or propose interesting ways of working around the question. It would be an educational experience.

[Knirisk]

It was an interesting game, although

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I wouldn't really agree completely with the final theory (which, in an ironic way, sort of validates it, I think). I would be more prone to apply two central pillars: the final theory, but with the addendum that not all rules of morality are applicable in all situations. Thus, a moral philosopher's goal should be to gather as many different kinds of valid moral ideas, so that he may better equip himself to deal with moral quandaries, while simultaneously being aware of their flaws. Funnily enough, to me that just sounds like what we do in every day life, though. Not that I would know, since I haven't really taken any classes or researched philosophy to any extent beyond my own thought.

Most of the philosophers were decently easy. Mills was the only one that really gave me trouble because I had conceived the basis of his Act Utilitarianism beforehand, thereby agreeing and accepting it without much thought as to its flaws. Kant wasn't too much trouble, no matter how many definitions he set forth.

[scrdest]

You know guys, we really need a Philosophy thread.

[Baneling]

There probably is one in the general discussion.

[Lectorog]

It's in Life Advice, amusingly.
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=130329.0