Bits of Ogres, Bytes of Orcs: Is Azeroth Metaphysically Real (and What in the World is Metaphysics)?
Philosophers have some strange conversations. I mean really strange. The kind of conversations that would cause the average person to question how we’ve managed to survive this long. You get a couple of philosophers playing World of Warcraft and you can rest assured that both the intelligibility and practicality of their discussion will taper off dramatically. But as you’re reading this book you’ve probably done your share of face melting and gold farming so I’m going to assume you’re okay with that.
I got involved in just such an obtuse conversation once after killing an orc outside the badlands. “I’ve slain an orc!” I proudly proclaimed to a colleague. “No”, he replied, “you initiated a computer program that displayed an animation of an ‘orc’ ‘dying’.” Yes, those scare quote gestures were included.
“Orcs aren’t real”, he declared. In true philosophical form I responded with a question; “what does ‘real’ mean?’” That question is the heart of the field of metaphysics. What in the world is metaphysics? Metaphysics is what’s in the world!
Specifically what are the key components of the universe? The ancients came up with the idea of dividing the world into four categories: earth, air, fire, and water. Modern scientists will say the universe is composed of atoms and not-quite-understood subatomic particles. But the term atom, in fact, was coined 2500 years ago by a Greek philosopher named Democritus to describe the smallest building block of the universe. Can the entire universe be described as complex interactions between basic physical particles?
Perhaps, but chances are if someone tells you that Warcraft is just a complicated computer program you’ll disagree. There is more to the world than what our five senses tell us, just as there is more to WoW than pressing keys to produce elaborate animations. What about consciousness and emotion? Are they real? Few would deny that they exist in some way, but if you ask whether they are completely separate from the other building blocks of the universe, well, then you’re thinking like a metaphysician. Ask the same question about Azeroth and you’re thinking like a philosopher who loves WoW.
Back to that dead orc. Or rather, ‘dead’ ‘orc’. Is it real? To be more technical I might say that what I did was execute a series of computer commands that interacted with a program stored on a centralized server, made changes to that program, then broadcast those changes to any other computer in the world that happened to be paying attention at the time. More physically speaking I might say I created a pre-defined pattern of electrical currents racing through a circuit board, a pattern that is recognized and replicated by other computers in the world.
How would my colleague, the Azerothian non-realist, describe an orc? He would say an orc is a pre-defined identifiable pattern of atoms - patterns that we recognize as biological and would include, among other things, green skin and large teeth. However there have never been examples of such patterns of atoms existing so orcs aren’t real - and certainly can’t be slain!
But now we’re arguing over semantics. To put things a bit more simply he might say the orc doesn’t really exist because it’s just a computer crunching numbers. But that leads us to the granddaddy of metaphysical questions: are numbers real?
By now this may all sound like I’m beating a dead orc. Philosophers have been arguing over this stuff for millennia and now we’ve got Azeroth and other persistent virtual worlds to add fuel to the debate. Actually, we’ve got 200+ Azeroths to add to it because each server hosts a different Azeroth, a different possible world. What happens on Uther stays on Uther - unless you transfer your toon to Kalecgos.
So even if Azeroth is real, which is the real Azeroth? Well, now you’re beginning to see how much fun metaphysics can be. . .
____________________
Post-Script: The abstract has been accepted!
Hi Kylie,
ReplyDeleteHere I think back to Heidegger's paper "What is Metaphysics?" which seems awfully important. Rather than asking if WoW is metaphysically real, we can ask the question, in what way of thinking/being does metaphysical thought show up?
I'm not philosopher, but it seems all too easy to armchair philosophize from the standpoint of a natural scientist's point of view, for they are never implicated in their own universe. As you've pointed out, it simply consists of a bunch of atoms. But in Heidegger's questioning of metaphysics, the philosopher's very existence is at stake. I don't want to pretend that I understand Heidegger at all here, but if I get him a little right, he seems to be saying that when a person is *really* engaged with a metaphysical question, they are trying to understand what makes the world appear to us in a certain way and in doing so, bring the stability of that entire world into question.
If I read Heidegger at all rightly here, Azeroth is of course real, insofar as it shows up in our world as a thing. The question is whether we experience it as real in the same way we experience buses and stadiums as real, or if it belongs to some other kind of reality (ie. fantasy). The question almost might be put: from what metaphysical philosophy are you asking if Azeroth is real? There are many, many, different traditions here... :)
Great finding someone else reading philosophy and playing games! :)
As a person passionate about philosophy, I generally frown upon the idea of "The philosophy of X" books. Call me an elitist, but the idea of trying to make philosophy more palatable always invokes cringes on my part, but this abstract is beginning to persuade me the other way. I see a lot of content here that I can appreciate and feel a bit more informed about what "The Philosophy of X" book might be like. It's a good possibility that you have persuaded a nay-sayer to book of this "Philosophy of X" book you'll be helping out. Now, I just need to work on getting a taste of the warcraft universe without it enveloping me . . . again.
ReplyDeleteGood write-up sir.
oh, by the way; psnid: Cancer-fish
@Chris
ReplyDeleteDespite the charming photo of Herr Martin up on the banner my own familiarity with Heidegger is limited to Being and Nothingness (from whence the term "existentiell" was born) and The Question Concerning Technology. However I can see much of the same thought in Technology that you are describing from Metaphysics.
In Technology he makes that point that our understanding of the world (scientific understanding, I don't recall if he refers to metaphysics at all, but the distinction is muddled) is based on technology, itself the result of previous technology, itself the result of unproven theories that seem to work even if they are untrue. The problem is that we become so dependent on the technology that we "locked in" to a certain way of understanding the world. Thus some questions are answerable while others are not.
The way I make sense of this is through paradigm shifts and thinking that, had we developed technology a little differently we might, say, currently have the ability to produce unlimited clean energy, but may still be struggling with communicating over long distances (telephone, internet, etc.). Certain paradigms make certain problems solvable and others unsolvable, but we get so locked into certain technologies/paradigms that we can't see another way of doing it. It would require a radical restructuring of not only technology but the foundations of science.
This could relate back to Azeroth in that Azeroth, of course, is a place that exists - regardless of what metaphysical status it has - because of technology. It simply couldn't be without the specific technology that we have. Since we create technology it's only a small leap to say that we subsequently create our own reality.
I still say I killed that frakkin' orc!
@cancerfish
ReplyDeleteElitist!
I'm actually very very, excruciatingly passionate about making philosophy relevant to everyday people which I don't necessarily consider the same as making it palatable (though the two do often go hand in hand). While I recognize that there is a reason and a use for high level professional philosophical conversation and engage in it myself from time to time, I know that what got me into philosophy was seeing it in the everyday world. Philosophical ideas are all around us, they just aren't be explicitly labeled "philosophy".
Part of this stems from my experiences teaching intro classes. Most disciplines have a built-in incentive. People take intro to bio because they want to be doctors, etc. Even something less concrete and practical, like literature, people approach because they're interested in literature and maybe want to make a career out of it as teachers or novelists. Philosophy is something that students often have a passing interest in but aren't fully clear about what it entails and trying to launch into abstract concepts - even Descartes' Meditations which is like the "standard" intro reading - often loses people. When people start saying "who cares - why do we need 100% certainty? Why can't we just accept the world around us" I can't really find a way to answer them.
But the pop culture books generally find a way to show how these abstract philosophical concepts are present in our everyday world. In fact in my intro courses I have the students purchase one of their choice and then create a list of essays that correspond with the topics we're covering. That way even if they aren't really getting the relevance of, say, the mind-body problem they can read about how Pink Floyd talked about it in their lyrics and may be get interested.
Ok, coming down off my PR-like soap box now. I'm glad this post made you re-consider a bit. I would highly suggest reading through one of those books to decide for yourself (my personal fave is Tarantino & Philosophy).
But be afraid of the Warcrack. I've got 1 year "sober" myself :P
Hm, I guess I am to blame for not making the distinction between relevant and palatable. My apologies.
ReplyDeleteIn other thoughts, however, I have always agreed with you; philosophy ought to be relevant to everyone, or at least more accessible. I've had visions of philosophy, or at the very minimum logical fallacies being taught in high school. In my experience, I was told how to write a paper, but never how to argue for it. This is something I find crucial in all aspects of life.
Thanks for the informative discussion - I'm sure it won't be the last!
I've got about 2 months to go before I receive my one year 'sober' chip from warcrack lol
I don't see a way to edit my post, but anyway, just saw your post script.
ReplyDeletecongratulations!
I look forward to hearing more about your work for this book