FinalStrigon wrote:
Huh...I never had any kind of philosophy until I hit the college level. And of those, it was a basic intro class where the teacher required right or wrong answers for our interpretations (oh, no, you interpreted the Allegory of the Cave wrong, F for you), and Epistemology, which was basically a grad student trolling over us freshmen. So far, the day I embarrassed him in class remains one of the best moments of my college career...



Sounds like Constructivist are the most level-headed, though, I think. Or at least the easiest to get along with, if I understand you right.

That sounds about right. Nihilism is utterly depressing, so nihilists would probably be too gloomy to play games, as they do not exist. Unless they listen to Nietzscheand decide to express their power by crushing the puny alien races and becoming the uber man, in which case they would probably be in this thread advocating planet razing. Of course, once they did so they would realize that this thread has no real purpose, just like their lives (as there is no meaning in life for them) and would then either become existentialist and create meaning, or commit suicide to end the illusion of life. Nihilism is fun!

Dualism for president. Besides, if you consider emptiness ranging from 100%-0% when filling a glass and fullness ranges from 0%-100% you suddenly have the same reference of quantity and thus no dichotomy.



Now that this terrible stuff is off my mind: Razing systems is something I don't really like. Pilgrims already can steal everything your systems have to offer, I would very much mind them destroying the rest of it.

Nosferatiel wrote:
I've got a problem with that. A glass cannot be half-empty, without being half-full, unless you counted emptyness as a filling, so a fully empty glass could be filled with two times half-empty loads. On the other hand, if emptyness had the quality of a filling, a glass being empty would be full of emptyness, therefore full, which is also contradictory.



So a half-full glass has always to be half-empty, too, there's no choosing one or the other, logically.



I so hope igncom reads this, now...

Mind = blown

There are probably people who don't want you to be able to raze systems. It'd likely piss Hissho players off. Depending on the restrictions it could be crazy good for Cravers - only generate locust points on planets you need right this moment, etc.

These votes take so long, you'd think they'd be able to work in all three features by the time it was over.

Armid wrote:
Aww, this thread deserves a rating of "Excellent" only for this discussion.







That's a rather simplification of what nihilism is. While it is true that sometimes depression or despair follow sUuit to the realization that life has no purpose whatsoever, this is hardly always the case.



Edit: well, not as long as nihilism as a philosophy is concerned anyway. I'm not meaning that people in general don't get depressed when they figure out that their life has no meaning.

I know, I was just simifying to be humorous. I am not an expert, but I studied worldview and philosophy in highschool (go classical education!) and I will be doing quite a bit of it in college. Although, admittedly Nietzche did go crazy in the end...

Hokucho wrote:
I think it should be used as a way of judging priority, not picking one over the other. Id love to see everything voted for done so far, but, there is priotizing. dont do razed buildings if thats not what the hottest vote is for, but do it later.

That's exactly what the G2G votes are. The winner of each poll goes on the priority list for the next update, and the losers gets cycled back in to show up sometime in a later update.

I think it should be used as a way of judging priority, not picking one over the other. Id love to see everything voted for done so far, but, there is priotizing. dont do razed buildings if thats not what the hottest vote is for, but do it later.

Aww, this thread deserves a rating of "Excellent" only for this discussion.

Proeliator wrote:
That sounds about right. Nihilism is utterly depressing, so nihilists would probably be too gloomy to play games, as they do not exist. Unless they listen to Nietzscheand decide to express their power by crushing the puny alien races and becoming the uber man, in which case they would probably be in this thread advocating planet razing. Of course, once they did so they would realize that this thread has no real purpose, just like their lives (as there is no meaning in life for them) and would then either become existentialist and create meaning, or commit suicide to end the illusion of life. Nihilism is fun!

That's a rather simplification of what nihilism is. While it is true that sometimes depression or despair follow suit to the realization that life has no purpose whatsoever, this is hardly always the case.



Edit: well, not as long as nihilism as a philosophy is concerned anyway. I'm not meaning that people in general don't get depressed when they figure out that their life has no meaning.

Sarg wrote:
There are probably people who don't want you to be able to raze systems. It'd likely piss Hissho players off. Depending on the restrictions it could be crazy good for Cravers - only generate locust points on planets you need right this moment, etc.

Optional checkbox.



Problem solved.



But, no, we get more shiny things that do nothing to help with the games current major flaw of being pretty lifeless.

Nosferatiel wrote:
I've got a problem with that. A glass cannot be half-empty, without being half-full, unless you counted emptyness as a filling, so a fully empty glass could be filled with two times half-empty loads. On the other hand, if emptyness had the quality of a filling, a glass being empty would be full of emptyness, therefore full, which is also contradictory.



So a half-full glass has always to be half-empty, too, there's no choosing one or the other, logically.



I so hope igncom reads this, now...

I always find it fascinating that the universe has the capacity of creating a method to understand itself via the example here.



Ironically one of the times when i have already been mind-blown already on such a topic.

Nosferatiel wrote:
I learned those things in school in normal philosophy classes. The strange thing is just, that I still remember those...

Short version:



Solipsists believe that they are the only thing that's proven to exist and basically everything else is due to their imagination.

Constructivists believe on the one hand, that they cannot prove the existence of nonexistence of anyone or anything, but on the other hand acknowledge that it's damn silly not to live by the rules and laws of physics and society, even if they might just come out of their imagination.

Nihilists just deny any kind of positive or negative aspects of something. What that "something" is or entails can widely vary. In this case probably the whole universe.

Huh...I never had any kind of philosophy until I hit the college level. And of those, it was a basic intro class where the teacher required right or wrong answers for our interpretations (oh, no, you interpreted the Allegory of the Cave wrong, F for you), and Epistemology, which was basically a grad student trolling over us freshmen. So far, the day I embarrassed him in class remains one of the best moments of my college career...



Sounds like Constructivist are the most level-headed, though, I think. Or at least the easiest to get along with, if I understand you right.

so many people butt hurt their option isn't getting picked lol, thats democracy for ya

FinalStrigon wrote:
In other words, I'll get back to you in a bit, as I have no idea what most of those subtypes of philosophy are, and must go pay a trip to Wikipedia. College is teaching me nothing...

I learned those things in school in normal philosophy classes. The strange thing is just, that I still remember those...

Short version:



Solipsists believe that they are the only thing that's proven to exist and basically everything else is due to their imagination.

Constructivists believe on the one hand, that they cannot prove the existence of nonexistence of anyone or anything, but on the other hand acknowledge that it's damn silly not to live by the rules and laws of physics and society, even if they might just come out of their imagination.

Nihilists just deny any kind of positive or negative aspects of something. What that "something" is or entails can widely vary. In this case probably the whole universe.

Nosferatiel wrote:
Why "our"? If he argues that things could just be unreal, I'd call him a solipsist and tell him he could either become a constructivist out of necessity and live on, a nihilist if he feels like giving up (which is himself, saying to give up, of course, since only he exists), combined with trying out disbelieving in need for nutritients or air, or just take the short route to ultimate knowledge like the solipsistic thinking bomb out of the film Darkstar, since it's easier for everyone he thought up.

... :l

...

...

...Hulk smash...



In other words, I'll get back to you in a bit, as I have no idea what most of those subtypes of philosophy are, and must go pay a trip to Wikipedia. College is teaching me nothing...

FinalStrigon wrote:
But the philosopher could argue how do you know the glass is even real? That those numbers are real? That you are real? Are you dreaming the glass to be larger than the engineer does? Or is the engineer a figment of our imaginations?

Why "our"? If he argues that things could just be unreal, I'd call him a solipsist and tell him he could either become a constructivist out of necessity and live on, a nihilist if he feels like giving up (which is himself, saying to give up, of course, since only he exists), combined with trying out disbelieving in need for nutritients or air, or just take the short route to ultimate knowledge like the solipsistic thinking bomb out of the film Darkstar, since it's easier for everyone he thought up.

Sadi wrote:
And typically, the mathematician could say: "Define the glass."

And a TRUE engineer: "Half-empty or half-full? Wait, that is the work of the machine! Not mine!"



Being a future engineer with a mathematical learning pathway and in internship in a physics laboratory, I think you can imagine my distress.

Draco18s wrote:
Surrealists believe that the glass is half of a slowly rotting lemon.

I think I'll stick to my favorite interpretation. Just bring in the Hulk, and this issue is settled with: "Hulk smash!"



No more conundrum, and if you're lucky, you even get to play whack-a-mole with a Norse god.

FinalStrigon wrote:
But the philosopher could argue how do you know the glass is even real? That those numbers are real? That you are real? Are you dreaming the glass to be larger than the engineer does? Or is the engineer a figment of our imaginations?



...



Ugh, I hate philosophy...

Surrealists believe that the glass is half of a slowly rotting lemon.

The thing is you do not host all the games you play in usually.



I did not want that ability in the game either, so i voted for the

trade-summary.



In general, perhaps the G2G votes could be organized in a way that after a vote on

cosmetical features, the next vote will be entirely on gameplay-mechanics.

AtomSoldat wrote:
In general, perhaps the G2G votes could be organized in a way that after a vote on

cosmetical features, the next vote will be entirely on gameplay-mechanics.

Well, the new vote is all about skipping manual combat while being able to play cards and improving the AI. Does even the first count as a gameplay-mechanic? If yes, they've done just that, now. ^^