Essay on game violence...

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by EMINEM
I'm pretty certain Dostoyevsky's faith remained rock solid after he came back from Siberia. I mean, he had ten years to pore over the New Testament (the only book allowed in prison).

Well, I was 6 years in a religious primary school, and look what it did to me Seriously though, I understand the arguments for your view, but I don't think it's a necessary conclusion since there are also signs of his faith declining later in life. Perhaps he kept his faith and had a propaganda goal with his writings as you suggests. Perhaps he kept or didn't keep his faith, point out fundamental issues about human nature, religion and society in his writing, but offer no solution, like I think.

I certainly think your conclusion of the Brothers Karamazov is one of several possible interpretation, but I view it as Dosty not presenting a solution, especially not on moral issues.

Since I know you already know that I don't share your view on how atheism has led to what you view as "the most violent century" ever, I will not repeat it - we've been in this discussion before, there is a whole thread filled with it somewhere in the SYM archives, but just for the record: Your view of is absolute moral values, and those moral values must come from the god you believe in, whereas I don't believe in any gods, and probably would describe myself as a moral realist with perhaps some relativistic aspects. Thus, our view of most things are bound to differ.

I think Georgi has a very good point in her post.

posted by Jaker
Anyway, I really am reticent about posting in serious discussions and the last thing I want to do is get into a 19th cent. Russian Lit flamewar with C Elegans Can't we just talk about Conan?

Who is Conan? j/k, but I haven't seen any of the movies.

[THE JAKER]

Originally posted by fable


Shucks, and I was waiting for you to overflow into Tolstoy, Turgenev and (my fave!) Andreyev.

I know you're just teasing me, Fable

But here's the quick rundown:
Tolstoy - meh. overrated and dated, his fame has been deflated
Turgenev - pretty decent, I give him a B+
Andreyev - haven't read, enlighten us please
Chekhov - Oh how I used to hate him, but now I see the humor.
Gogol - One of my favorites, put him in a room with Kafka, Phillip K. **** and Dr. Zaius and watch the sparks fly.

[C Elegans]

@Jaker & Fable: My quick rundown AFAIR, it was many years since I read most of this:

Pushkin: Beautiful but not my style, wish I could read it in Russian
Tolstoy: didn't like
Dostoyevsky: love his motives, get bored by his style
Gorky: Love this father of Russian realism
Gogol: Great stories with many dimensions
Achnatova: Liked her poetry
Chekov: didn't like
Charms: deep critisism of society disguised as great absurdism
Bulgakov: deep critisism of society disguised as great surrealism
Pasternak: didn't like
Solochov: Quite Don is great
Solcheniztyn: didn't like his style
Mayakovsky: didn't like his style
Nabakov: didn't like
Zamyatin: His "We" is many, many times better than 1984, the Orwell rip-off of the same story.

Unfortunately I haven't read Turgenev or Andeyev.

Again, sorry for the spelling, Cyrillic letters are transcripted quite differenetly to Swedish than to English.

[VoodooDali]

@Gaxx:
Bet you never imagined this thread would turn into a discussion of 19th century Russian literature. That's what's great about SYM.

Jaker started a thread called Gamebanshee Book Club to address this.

Maybe others can get poort Gaxx's thread re-focused on game violence. I've pretty much said all I can say here.

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by VoodooDali


Well, actually I am from the US. Beautiful New Jersey.

I disagree with your statement that "nihilism and atheism became dominant philosophies" in the 20th c. I think that what Nietszche and Dostoyevsky both recognized was that they had become "possible" philosophies. They wanted to imagine what the outcome of having a world-view without God would be. In some of their imaginings, it's a self-destructive nihilistic vision, in Nietszche's vision, though, it is more concerned with how that expands the role of mankind and what humans could evolve into (the Superman). Nietszche's vision was used incorrectly in an unfortunate way in the Nazi regime.

However, the dominant culture in Western society does believe in God, so atheism did not come to dominate, at the least.

This sort of argument makes me think of Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain. Two of the characters in the book--Settembrini and Naphta -- are used to contrast optimistic humanism and pessimistic absolutist ideology in unexpected ways. Through their convoluted arguments, they end up with conclusions very different from what one would expect. However, Mann is clear in characterizing them as intrinsically linked, two sides of the same coin. Neither could exist without the other, therefore Settembrini follows Naphta when he moves to a private apartment, and their arguments are so connected that their contrasting viewpoints cancel each other out. The fate of each character is also a carefully constructed commentary of each character's life view. They end with a duel. Settembrini shoots his gun in the air. Naphta shoots himself. Naphta's suicide during the duel highlights the self destructive nature of absolutist views when they finally become absolute without resistance. Settembrini's optimistic views simply lead to disillusionment.

Atheism and nihilism did not become dominant in North America, except perhaps in the university lecture halls and scientific labs of atheist scientists and philosophers. They did, however, become manifest in Communism and National Socialism, which became dominant political philosophies in the very countries from which Nietzche and Dostoyevsky hailed. For a number of interesting reasons, the strength of the Judeo-Christian worldview pre-eminent among them, atheism never really took root in the United States.

RE: Relativism. In all my life, I've never met a true moral relativist. Their theories sound good on paper, but in life and practice I can't tell one relativist from another. 'Cuz even if you hold to one, and only one, moral absolute (ie. rape is wrong), you cannot honestly consider yourself relativist. Like a neuron firing action potentials, relativism is an all or nothing response. Even my 4th year Ethics professor, who seemed to enjoy nothing more than to demolish my absolutist arguments, eventually had to admit (albeit, at the end of the semester) that she believed that the murder of innocent children could not be justified in any way.

[Nightmare]

Originally posted by VoodooDali
@Gaxx:
Bet you never imagined this thread would turn into a discussion of 19th century Russian literature. That's what's great about SYM.

Agree, completely.

Glad to see I got alot of people supporting my opinion, and I even got more agruments backing my essay.

@All, thanx.