A couple of days ago I was in a car going home and, like everyone, I was thinking about existential philosophy. At the time I was thinking about the simulation of a universe (specifically one governed by aesthetic laws instead of physical ones, but that isn't really important) and how it would be possible to assign meaning and goals to the simulated beings. This lead me to question whether the assignment of meaning from a greater universe necessarily meant that meaning was valid. Then I had a revelation: Pacman is a great analogy for life.
To help explain, I've included Pacman below. Play it. (To those using a mobile browser or can't use Pacman for whatever reason: dress up in yellow, put white marshmallows down, then eat them while WACA-WACA-WACA. In fact, anyone who does this, with ghosts, in a public place and films it for evidence wins a blog post of their choice, as well as a cup of coffee. Seriously.)
Now, having played it, play through it again but this time with an existential view; don't do anything until you've worked out a reason for doing it. This will lead you to just sit there as you get eaten three times.
You know what you have to do (eat some white dots) while playing whilst avoiding death (literally represented by the ghosts). What you don't know is why you are doing this. You don't enjoy the individual white dots. All that happens if you fail is you get a game over. But does this affect you?
This is the same as life, we might know what we intend to do with life (get a job, fall in love, have sex etc.) whilst avoiding death. But we have no greater reason for this than pleasure attainment.
But the real revelation with this was the difference between playing the game without thinking of the point and playing just thinking of the point. The latter never comes up with a satisfactory answer. They also have a lot less fun in the process.
This is the same as life: you'll never figure out why, but you'll miss it if you try.
No comments:
Post a Comment