(Philosocom video game subcategory directory)
Even philosophers are not without flaw, and if it weren't for these flaws, philosophy would arguably proceed less effectively. After all, all mistakes can arguably be used to develop a greater logical reasoning, making the notion of "poor logic", deserving to be functional to every philosophy reader and philosophers in general.
To this day, my former master criticized Nietzche for his egoism and Epictetus for his dichotomic approach to society (he's a philosophy professor, for those wondering; the one who introduced me to this profession).
Likewise, something which I believe that deserves to be criticized on my part, is the usage of video games when making my own arguments. On a logical standpoint, the idea of video games to be used as examples or analogies is flawed, because they have something called "video game logic".
This term is quite popular to those invested in this interest, because it basically means that the reasoning used in video games is more flawed than that of which governs real life, and thus, video games are, at large, illogical, therefore, the usage of illogical products when making arguments about the real world, is flawed, arguably.
For those less knowledgeable about video games, there are many illogical things in them which make them hard to be applied to real life, just like with any other fiction-based product such as a book, a movie and so on.
Plots in movies, like in games, are sometimes made for connivence, for reasons such as worktime, financial investment, the duration of consumption and so on. In other words, if a movie lasts 2 hours, then everything that is relevant to the plot needs to somehow be there in order for the movie to "work", in order to make sense to the viewers, even if many things in it are to be cut as a result.
Therefore, when cutscenes end, they usually end for a reason that is not limited to the cutscene itself, but also for the next scene to take place.
That is, in general, the problem in making all kinds of fictional media, and thus, the reliance on it, in order for real life to make sense, is flawed. We are not, objectively, main characters, unless if we refer to "our own worlds", and sometimes we don't even have villains or antagonists of our own.
Most of us are not powerful enough to overcome several enemies, whether physically or otherwise, and our lives only end with death, and not when we overcome an adversary. Sometimes the main character dies after a last battle, but that's not always the truth.
Now, I use logic from video games and from fiction in general not because of these reasons, for these reasons are flawed. I have two reasons for me using video games, which aren't "video game logic" -- the fact that I technically have no social life, and the fact that fiction can hold some ground in reality, even if not of its entirety; sometimes they are based on real-life events, but I digress.
Regarding the first reason: Due to me not being a very social individual, and not even a romantic one, I don't often talk with a lot of people consistently. By "social" I refer to social interactions, and not to every kind of interaction. When I'm writing to you, I'm not socializing with you, I'm simply trying to put a message across, and thus, contribute.
On the other hand, I do consume a lot of fictional media, far more than socially interacting with others, so it would only be natural that I will often give fiction-based examples than real-life ones. Also, I consume them in a way that is accessible to all -- the internet -- so it's something that you too can find in your own time whenever I'm talking about a certain piece.
The second reason: There is something I like to call Represented Logic. One could claim that everything is logical, and thus, even fiction could hold some logical ground, even if it's not addressed literally. Therefore, logic that isn't explicitly said, is technically represented.
It could also be a reason as to why philosophy has the potential to be relevant to all, as logic can be arguably universal. In other words, every logic could be represented in one way or another, by simply making sense to the human mind. Therefore, even a piece of fiction can be logical, regardless of how ridiculous it might be.
It is easy to mock pieces of fiction simply because of their flawed logic, of their "video game logic", of a logic that is too flawed to be realistic. Thus, one can find online countless parodies of any fictional media, and even that, which is based on real life events and people. Political satires are such examples, by the way.
As I wrote before it's important to be criticized, or even "lambasted", if it means one or many would be able to benefit from it. After all, if it weren't for the cause of the criticism, the latter would not exist necessarily, and as a result, there will be less contribution made.
Nonetheless, it does not necessarily entail something to be absurd, and since fiction isn't completely absurd at all times, I strive to use it in my arguments, whenever I believe, they could contribute to the subject I discuss at the time, and therefore, to my readers too.
I used to have a bigger ego, I think, but I eventually realized that nothing is without fault, so it doesn't really matter to strive for perfection, as anything and anyone can be criticized/"lambasted". Now that I am more confident in my expertise, I feel less of a need to state it regularly.
I see the need to contribute, more than to voice good things about myself. I believe that even then I used my own example for the similar reason I used fiction-based logic: Because I am most often than not, alone.
So no, I am not here online for greater validation, for I already know who I am. I am here to contribute to feel more meaningful and impactful. That is, after all, to be greater than myself.
To show the world that SHE is wrong.
