GTA: The City In Speech

In the republic Socrates when talking about the guardians who will be appointed to protect the city will be educated. He says that they should be not only physically trained but also mentally trained through the use of music. With music they will be trained by the stories contained there in to understand not only what behavior is agreeable to society, but also their role in the polis should be. Socrates makes this clear when he says, "We first begin by telling stories to children?And surely they are false on the whole, though they have some truth in them(Republic 377a5). Socrates notes that these stories used to teach the children will "on the whole" be false, but also contain an element of truth. This concept of the false story with true elements used for the purposes of teaching will later be labeled by Socrates as, "the noble lie". For example, a noble lie that is popular among contemporary american house holds would be, something like Santa Clause: telling a child that if they are good once a year they will get gifts from a seasonal deity, but if they are bad that same deity will punish them. Therefore to Socrates the story is merely a vehicle to impressing upon children that if they obey rules they will be rewarded, and if they break them they will suffer negative consequences.

But, this hits on something that Socrates just talked about a few lines back, I.e., the "noble lie". While Socrates qualifies this lie by saying that it is noble, this does not make it any less oriented towards truth. True the ultimate goal of the noble lie is to impress upon children lesson that will help socioty. But, is it right to violate the societal standard of what is socially acceptable to teach children those same lessons? Essentially what we have is a lie told for the purpose of keeping children from lying. Socrates himself says that lying, through stories, is the only way to impose moral lessons on children from such an early age. But, in the process of educating these children the teacher would be breaking the law of the city in speech. Thus we have a new predicament: is lying ok if it is for the good of the city?

Though the article from The New York Times is one revolved around violence in video games and the possible manifestation of violent actions in children through being exposed to that medium, it seems to me that the issue becomes not only wether we sensor and commit hypocrisy. But, also wether we judge for someone else whether or not they are mentally capable of interpreting art for themselves.

This issue regards adults discerning what is and isn't acceptable material for them to be influenced by.In the case of children I agree that there should be censorship. I think we can all agree that a child does not for himself have the ability to discern between what parts of a story he is told are and are not metaphorical. We all see this. This is why children are crushed when we tell them after that Santa clause isn't really. Why? Because when we told them the story of the man in the red suit, they were not able to discern what part of the story was true and what was not. As adults we can see that the grain of truth to the story was that presents arrive on Dec.25 if you are good, and if you are bad they do not. But, for a child they have no ability to distinguish between the parts of the story that are super furious and the parts that are factually valid. For this reason, as we all know, we keep the truth hidden behind lies for children so that they might understand them.

However I see this issue as being one of censorship among adults being of a different nature. While children are not able to discern between the moral lesson in a story and the actions in a story, adults are able to. Adults are conditioned to being told lies through out their lives. Sometimes these lies involve truth, sometimes they do not. But, in stories moral lessons are almost always inherent. Since this is the case, most adults are able to draw the moral lesson out of a tale, without being duped by the fictional details.

In the case of video games there is already a rating system in place to keep a person of an inappropriate age from purchasing it. Since this is the case, it is just as difficult for a child to be exposed to a video game beyond their years as it would be for them to access any other from of media that they are not mature enough to handle. Therefore this question is not one of protecting impressionable young minds from violent media. It is a question of wether we should protect adult autonomous agents from themselves. I say themselves, because of what has already implicitly but not directly been stated : that it is not the media that imposes these moral lessons on people it is that persons own interpretation of the media. As before the issue is almost a guessing game of how different aspects of the media will influence a particular individual. Two people could watch the same violent act and one could understand the connection between the violent act and punishment. The other could miss the connection entirely, Or make a correlation that was unintended by the creator. Such as violence in a video game leading to a benefit or a reward.

With this in mind, it truly seems only like a guessing game for the censor. He must attempt to censor what he believes the censor-e could potentially make the wrong correlation between.This is exactly why we censor media that is geared towards children, and do not censor that media for adults. Adults are able to make the correct correlation between two correct concepts in media, and for themselves make a cause effect correlation. But, children have not yet had it impressed upon them that some actions warrant praise and some actions decent.

According to Socrates then it seems to be of little consequence the content of the media, as long as the message, or the end result on the subject is the correct one. And this can be seen again in the Republic. Socrates has already said that it is the goal of the story to impress upon children societal lessons. One of these lessons is lying. On line 389c Socrates commands, "So, if [anyone] is caught telling lies in the city... he will be punished for introducing a practice that is a subversive and destructive of a city as of a ship."In this way Socrates notes that for a citizen to lie to his ruler is as if a patient lied to his doctor. Of course this could lead to the doctor giving the patient the wrong treatment and possibly hurting himFor example if there is violence and cursing, and all sorts of other socially disagreeable content in media so be it, as long as the message is trill right. Since the original article takes the example of the video game “Grand theft auto” I will use it as my example. FOr those that do not engage in this form of media, “Grand Theft Auto” is what is commonly referred to as a “sand box” style video game. This sub-genre receives its name quite simply from the plastic box that is filled with sand. Essentially the idea is that within only the confines of the the game the player can do anything and everything that one might choose to. As the protagonist of the game the player can choose to commit any number of crimes or societally detrimental acts. This seems to be the sticking point for the former Governor.

Therefore with all of the facts considered, it would seem to me that Socrates would perfectly fine with "Grand Theft Auto" being sold and enjoyed by the citizens of the city in speech. As it is being viewed by an audience that is able to discern for themselves the correct correlation between events in the game. As well as the fact that the events in the game have appropriate consequences. Which seems to me Socrates main concern with any form of media.

Discretion Advised

A perfect world does not, by definition, contain anything bad, and since vices are inherently bad, it follows that in a perfect world there would be no vice. This is the ideal city Plato wishes to create in the Republic. However, vice is a fact of life, both in our world, and in the world in which Plato’s theoretical city is founded. In order to abolish such vice, Plato suggests sanctions regulating citizens’ exposure to content which contains representations of vice. He claims that a man’s actions are based on his observation of the actions of others, stating, “for it is given, I think, only to a few to figure out that the conduct of other people must necessarily influence our own” (Aesthetics 31). One does what one sees others do. Authentic actions observed in others are not the only source of one’s inspiration. Plato contends that dramatic performances as well as all other art, which he collectively considers imitative, influences a person just as strongly. Plato realizes, “the irritable character furnishes a great variety of materials for imitation,” (30) hence such a character is more likely to be dramatically represented. He fears that exposure to works that present such undesirable characters will in turn lead to the development of the same qualities in the populace. On these grounds he concludes, “be justified in refusing to admit [the poet] into a city that is going to be well-governed, because he excites and feeds and strengthens this worthless part of the soul, and thus destroys the rational part” (31). The poet must be censured because his poetry only pollutes the mind with filthy ideas that will influence one’s character for the worst.

While Plato makes a valid point, his idea of censorship appears excessive. We are born helpless, it seems, impressionable babes and we must rely solely on observation to begin making sense of the world. No doctrine of good and evil, virtue and vice behooves us until a parent or guardian, after tangible demonstration (punishment, praise), instills such notions in us. We do not walk out of the womb, as is seen in other creatures; rather we gradually grow accustomed to the world solely by our existing in it. It is for this reason--our initial susceptibility to influence, regardless its quality--which makes pertinent a regulation of exposure. Parents must create an atmosphere conducive to good habits. It is the success at fostering proper judgment in the lad that will grant him the means to determine for himself how to interpret various influences. This is the point of contention. How capable are we, in our personal judgment, to discern good from bad, and especially when it is presented ambiguously in the trash that is pop culture? And further still, how much can we depend on our own judgment, even if we consider it good judgment, to filter out garbage presented in both trend and popular opinion as an accepted norm? This begs the question, what capacity for personal judgment do we actually have if this judgment is itself a product relative to its environment? For example, one person might judge another to be a bad person solely because the latter uses marijuana. Such a judgment relies solely on the influence of an environment in which pot is frowned upon. So it seems that even while we may have a capacity for judgment, not even this is safe from the corruption of influences it is supposed to discern.

So, Plato, I’ll grant you that humans, regardless their disposition or the strength thereof, are irrefutably influenced by their environment, since it seems even our very own judgment derives from the context of real events. If it is the case that we derive our dispositions to judgment from our environment, then, as active participating members of this environment, our judgments should reflect the entire extent of our understanding of our world. That is to say, watching a trashy television program should only influence me in relation to what I have already experienced in the world. Just because I watch Jersey Shore doesn’t mean I’m automatically going to imitate The Situation. I have had enough other influences to balance this one out. However, this is not the case with children who are still impressionable because they have yet to gain a more complete understanding of the world. A child playing a violent videogame—and there are some violent ones out there—will simply not possess the same capacity as an adult for distinguishing reality from its virtual representation.

While representations of life—movies, videogames, epic poetry—influence our experience of the world, Plato seems to exaggerate their magnitude in relation to our lives. Exposure to filth, imitative or otherwise, does not necessitate reciprocation on our part. Our judgment, limited as it may be, does not automatically conclude, “Monkey see, monkey do.” It is completely within our capacity to extrapolate from observation, “Monkey see, and monkey think better of.” It is exactly one’s exposure to the contrary of what he intuits to be right that allows for a personal development of proper judgment. If one is sheltered from vice his whole life, what is he to make of it when it inevitable crosses his path? In a world of inherent vice, censorship only begets ignorance. Instead, the responsibility falls on the parents, guardians, teachers, and mentors to educate impressionable children on the correct way of discerning what the latter are exposed to.

It is not the representation of vice itself, but the context in which this representation is observed which determines its influence. Motion picture ratings for recommended audiences attest to this. A film certified PG suggests parental guidance regarding young viewers. Certain content of this movie is best interpreted under the guidance of an adult. Regarding the particular case involving fines imposed on stores selling videogames to minors, I feel this is less a case of censorship than one of responsibility. The games contain mature content targeted toward audiences that (hopefully) know how to keep their videogame experience in context. Game stores that do not regulate such sales risk polluting impressionable minds with content the latter will not necessarily know how to evaluate properly. I find no objection to minors playing explicit games, given they know enough about the real world as to not let themselves be influenced by such. It is the impressionable youth with their soft, undeveloped skulls with whom we need be concerned. Even then, exposure to vice only amounts to reciprocation if such exposure is not conditioned to be channeled properly through discretion.

Perspectives on Plato's Pop Culture Problem

Alexander Nehemas correctly identifies the parity in reasoning between Plato’s rejection of Epic poetry (among other forms of art) and the proposed ban on violent video games in California. Both are justified in part by the underlying premise that certain forms of representation or art (if one allows violent video games to be classified within this category) pose a possible threat to society and its constituents. Art may reflect life, but according to Plato and certain legislators in California, it is also capable of debasing it, corrupting our attitudes and actions and thus the world in which we live. Prima facie, this similarity between the ancient Greek philosopher and the California governor seems legitimate. Nonetheless, it would be worth providing a sketch of Plato’s account of art to ascertain the extent to which he and Governor Schwarzenegger agree on its possible detrimental effect. It would also be worth considering an opposing view of another ancient Greek philosopher, viz. Aristotle, who would probably oppose the California law or at least reject the main premise of its justification. Finally, one might compare these thinkers to the relatively modern art theorist Clive Bell, who corroborates Aristotle’s suspicion of the importance of representational content in art and even goes so far as to completely renounce it as a determining factor in considering the quality of a work. After surveying all of these thinkers though, there still may remain an unspoken appeal of violent video games in society, which ironically consists in the same reason for which Schwarzenegger wants them banned: violent video games fill us with violent sentiments.

Plato equates the value of art with its utility. He posits that rather than possessing intrinsic value—being good in and of itself, art’s value consists in being good for something else. Within his teleological system of goods, most specific goods ultimately function as a means to obtain the ultimate Good, which for Plato is a specific kind of knowledge. In his Symposium, Plato suggests that art is also a means to this ultimate Good (39). The dialogue focuses not on art but its object, beauty. Beauty is defined as a peculiar form us desire; unlike most desires, our appetite for beautiful objects is not appeased by our acquisition of them. As a result of this insatiable quality, we learn that beautiful objects are not that which we seek, but rather, as Plato explains, the form of beauty alone and not specific instances of it is the appropriate object of our desire. Once we recognize the true nature of beauty, we are inclined to recognize its relation to knowledge and the Good, after which we realize that these final goods are what we truly desire. Art then is valuable as a guide in our search of knowledge and the Good. It is for this reason that Plato advocates censorship of certain art in the Republic (31). For ‘bad art’, which neither participates in nor directs us towards the form of beauty, will in turn be unable to aide us in our search of the Good. Indeed, ‘bad art’ will have the opposite effect on us, instilling us with poor virtues and preventing us from pursuing the good, leading us farther astray.

It’s questionable whether governor Schwartzenegger would commit to the view that violent video games inhibit us from pursuing knowledge and the ultimate human good. Nevertheless, he would probably assent to Plato’s claim that representations of improper ethical behavior dispose us to developing inferior ethical values ourselves. It may be asked, however, to what extent we are susceptible to the negative influence of representation in our culture. Nehamas himself poses the question but leaves it unanswered, or at least doesn’t answer explicitly. He expresses apprehension over the possibility that we might in fact be substantially affected by such influence. Yet he doesn’t elaborate, suggesting that he may feel this possibility is not actually the case. Indeed, some philosophers would overtly deny the underlying assumption of both Plato’s account of art and Schwarzenegger’s proposal to censor violent video games. Aristotle, a student of Plato, would deny the purported bleak consequences produced by negative representations in our culture.

Aristotle would reject this premise because, unlike Plato, he denies the significance of the representational content in art. That is, although he conceives of art as both representation and pedagogical accoutrement, as does Plato, Aristotle differs from Plato in his dismissal of the relation between the artwork and the object the artwork purports to represent. For Aristotle, bad representation in art doesn’t pose a threat to society because society isn’t or certainly shouldn’t be concerned about the content of the representation. Form, not content, determines the success or failure of art (Poetics 48). It is thus possible that an artwork depict vile characters performing acts considered anathema by the ethical community, but if these characters interacted in such a way within the framework of the story so as to reveal universal truth about life, one would rightly consider the artwork a success. To remark upon the deplorable qualities of the characters would be to misunderstand the noteworthy elements of the work. The characters are unessential let alone worthy of attention that might lead to an adoption of their traits. As a result, we would, or should only be (positively) affected by the plot, as this is what relates the most valuable or substantial element of the work. Specifically, it relates universal laws or principles. Aristotle recognizes that this kind of knowledge does not derive from particulars, but rather it derives from the relationship between particulars; the qualities of the particulars themselves are substantially less significant. This is how metaphor functions (52). We identify X as Y, not because they share identical traits but because they are united by universals in such a way that they seem comparable. Aristotle recognizes the role of metaphor in art, whereas Plato does not. Plato seems to believe that our knowledge of an artwork derives from the likeness of the representation to the object represented. Under this conception, we take our lessons not from the relations expressed within the content but the content itself. It follows then from this view that if the content of a work consists of moral turpitude, the knowledge we take from it will be tarnished in that light. Aristotle rejects this view.

Aristotle, though, probably wouldn’t extol violent video games. He might not label them as hazardous to the moral education of our youth, but he also (probably) wouldn’t recognize these video games as good art. In evaluating them, rather than inquire about the violence conveyed within, he would consider the plot. Do the stories of these games reveal the universal laws and principles that govern us? An affirmative answer seems unlikely. However, there are examples of violent stories that are successful in this regard. The title character of Shakespeare’s Macbeth is bloody and ruthless, as are a number of other characters in this macabre play, and yet the universal themes contained within the work (e.g. the corrupting power of unchecked ambition) render it a successful piece of art. If the video games were able to establish plots to similar effect, Aristotle would not reject them as ‘bad art’, but he would do so with one qualification. That is, consummate weaving of plot may qualify them as ‘good art’ but they would be better art if they achieved this and the content within the plot was non-violent. Aristotle thus concedes that representation does hold some importance, as virtuous or otherwise positive representation content qualifies a work as that of a higher form (55). There is, however, at least one modern aesthetic theorist would take issue with this qualification.

Clive Bell shares Aristotle’s view that form conquers content in determining factors of good art. Yet he would insist that representational content is completely inconsequential. Art moves us because its form possesses ineffable yet universal qualities that evoke an aesthetic sentiment in us (266). This is the only (albeit monumental) effect art enacts upon us. Representational content, like a violent character for instance, simply lacks the power to influence us the way that form does. Like Aristotle, Bell would probably doubt that video games could possess the appropriate form required to move us in this specific way, but it is possible. He differs from Aristotle in that, it were conceded that video games did in fact possess such form, he would be required to grant these video games the same artistic status that he would any other objet d’art whose excellence of form was paramount.

What all of these thinkers (and the proponents of the California ban) seem to clearly dismiss is the possibility of art having a detrimental yet legitimate effect upon us. Plato and Aristotle posit that art can (or should) only affect us positively. That is, art educates us, which is proper and good. Bell lends credence to art as a catalyst of emotion so positive he relates the sentiment to experiencing ecstasy. And of course, Schwarzenegger wants to ban video games because they might be detrimental to youth. But can some good art affect us negatively; can its goodness be derived paradoxically from how it makes us bad? I don’t think we should immediately dismiss an affirmative answer to this question. Searching for a corroborating example, I’m inclined to think of certain works by Jean-Michel Basquiat, the Brooklyn-born painter and graffiti artist who came to prominence in the early 1980’s in New York. The crass scribbling of his naïve expressionist paintings and murals might qualify as art in a few ways. They represent, with eerie precision, a certain malaise present amid the New York under-class culture at the time. In this way they are educational (under Aristotle’s view), relating certain universal laws about class, modern urban life, and the human condition. But the truths these works reveal are dour if not devastating. Instead of inspiring sentiments of ecstasy (as Bell would demand), what one gathers from the works moves her to hopelessness and despair. And yet, no one appreciative of art would want to be displaced from a Basquiat, despite or indeed because of its powerful negative influence. Perhaps this shows that we don’t necessarily require art to move us to good, but simply that is moves us. The proponent of violent video games might make such an appeal. Perhaps video games do fill us with a passionate destructive rage, but this is precisely what we want from the representations we surround ourselves with in daily life. We may well want to be moved to be good, but this doesn’t mean we don’t also want to be moved to be bad.

Video Games As An Art?

The censorship of violent video games is a relatively new point societal contention. When considering the history of violent video games, it is commonly accepted that the first “violent video game” appeared in 1993 with the first installment of the acclaimed “Doom” series for the PC. This first-person shooter is arguably the first game in its genre to display the unnecessary, over-graphic depictions of violence. But are we really going to attribute violence in video games to the so-called violent behavior of our youth? If so, we as society have taken the blame-game to another level. How do we account for the Ted Bundys or Charles Mansons who were clearly not the product of violent video games, as even they pre-dated the very existence of such games? These questions are highly relevant to the topic at hand, and must be addressed delicately if we are ever going to find a reasonable solution (besides fining companies that sell video games to youth) to combating violent behavior in our youth. Perhaps this is where Plato and Aristotle help direct us to examine the art in question (in this case, videogames), and whether such art is worthy of harsh repudiation (i.e. censorship).

As it seems now, violent video games have become an uncanny source for blame. Proponents of censorship attack video games for their over-the-top depiction of violence and demand that such games not be accessible to our youth. The argument goes something like this: since violent video games depict acts of brutality, revenge, and other such vices, they inadvertently encourage such behavior in those who play the games. This far-fetched argument, however, and is hardly true.
To reiterate what Kip stated in his post, perhaps at first glance Plato would embrace a similar mentality of blame towards this form of “art”. Plato writes, “for it is given, I think, only to a few to figure out that the conduct of other people must necessarily influence our own, and that it is no easy matter, after feeding the strength of the principle of pity upon the sufferings of others, to keep it under restraint when we suffer” (Plato, 31). Here Plato wishes to advances the argument that those capable of seeing art’s destructive potential must oblige themselves to the censoring of such art. The problem with this claim, however, brings into question the “few” who are responsible for the censoring of such art. If society relies upon the opinions of those who claim that violent video games are the source of violent behavior, then how do we strike a balance between those who find it offensive and those who do not?

Nehamas suggest in his article that accusing violent video games as a source for violent behavior is considered by scholars “only as the result of ‘bad or irrelevant research, muddleheaded thinking and unfounded, simplistic news reports’” (Nehamas). Thus, we see there are two sides to the story between those who condemn violence in video games and those remain receptive to this particular form of “art”. The issue is hence two-fold: the first of which begin that, if video games are actually the source of violent behavior, then should they be censored? And secondly, who are the “few”, as Plato puts it, that are responsible for determining censorship, particularly if there is division even amongst the “few”?
In order to examine this problem furthermore, it is important first of all to give a proper representation of the art in question. Arguably (as according to my limited knowledge of gaming), violent video games are produced, developed, and sold for a single purpose: to depict a fanciful or, in some cases, real-life scenario involving a hero who must overcome the trials of evil, even at the cost of violently slaughtering every foe who might have the misfortunate of crossing paths with this him. In part, this provides the gamer with a false sense of accomplishment; as he/she lives vicariously through the necessary violent life of the game’s hero. Hence the purpose of most violent video games is not to depict a reality of all serial killers, but rather construct a world where you, as the gamer, prevail as the hero. However, this very point remains a problem for Plato.

In book X of the Republic, Nehamas notes Plato’s example of Achilles as misrepresentation of art. Homer portrayal Achilles character as being equally full of vice as he is virtue is problematic for Plato because the audience is led to sympathize with Achilles at the end of the Iliad, despite the untamed, violent nature of Homer’s hero. Thus Plato attacks this form of poetry as misrepresentation of the good and subsequently qualifies it as a form of art worthy of censorship.
Conversely, Aristotle finds hope in characters like Achilles for the cathartic sensation they impart upon the audience. In the Poetics, Aristotle defines what calls a cathartic experience, where the audience departs from the art with a feeling of emotional contentment. This contentment, however, does not result from the hero who always chooses to do the right thing, but rather, from the character who recognizes his error and embraces a willingness to redeem himself. If we make an Aristotelian comparison to modern video games, we can see a certain cathartic element in today’s most popularly condemned gaming series, “Grand Theft Auto”. At the end of one of the GTA installments, the main character is forced with a decision to either remain loyal to his family or to continue living the violent life to which he has become accustomed. Fortunately, the plot concludes with the hero abandoning his violent life for the tranquility of community and family. Thus, one could argue that even today’s most equally hated and loved game exudes some redeeming elements.
Yet does Aristotle’s cathartic experience help vindicate the mass production violent video games and their availability courtesy of our local “Game Stop”? Perhaps it should, but perhaps, more importantly, the “few” who condemn violent video games for their alleged influence on the youth ought to take a stronger stand against the pervasiveness of negligent and abusive parents. Put frankly, accusing video games for producing a violent youth excuses the responsibility of parents and the community who, in my opinion, are responsible for fostering a child to become more discerning in his behavior.

Additionally, those concerned with censorship should pressure the gaming industry into taking more initiative to produce games that are more artistic and less simplistic. The same must be true with all forms of art. The biggest problem with the gaming industry is how often it targets an audience that is susceptible to their base, carnal desires. Obviously, kids are going to continue playing video games that contain violence at catastrophic levels. Thus, the gaming industry – like the film and music industry – should be less concerned with what sells, and more concerned with the creative process and skill that help construct the piece of art.

Finally, to answer the question of video game censorship, I find Aristotle’s interpretation of art most convincing. If we as a society want to produce good art, then we must focus upon the relationship between the art and the artist. This means overlooking what may appear to be a direct consequence of the art (i.e. video games encourage violent behavior), instead paying more attention to the creativity involved in producing such art. Although this does not vindicate all violent video games, it does promote a more moderate approach. If games like GTA are capable giving the audience cathartic experience, then perhaps I find their censorship simply inexcusable.

Simulated Violence v. Real Violence

Whether violent video games ought to be censored by law or not is really to question the morals of our society today and even of our society tomorrow, for the majority of the video game age demographic is young to adolescent.  Isn’t this also the same when we ask how movies ought to be rated?  Why are there so many different movie review websites catering to parents who wish to monitor what their children see without them on a Friday night?  Would these exist and be visited so frequent if this was not an issue?  “While philosophy doesn’t always provide clear answers to our questions,” Nehamas draws from the philosophical discussion of 4th century B.C. Plato, in order to “reveal what exactly it is that we are asking” (Nehamas). So what exactly are we asking?  The debate seems to be directly concerned with what is a “violent” video game.  The United States Court of Appeals defines “violent video game” as:

a video game in which the range of options available to a players includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being... it is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors... enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon images of human beings or characters with substantially human characteristics in a manner which is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved in that is involves torture or serious physical abuse to the victim (“Video Software”).

So the question in which we turn to a very old man for an answer is:  ought the video games considered violent be permitted for mass consumers?

Plato describes the nature of 4th century B.C. poetry as imitation (10.595-595b).  This is particularly relevant to the simulation that video games provides because the gamer directly participates with the given settings, personalities, and controls.  Thus, the medium of theater has evolved into a much more imitative interaction: you see what the “hero” sees, you control what he does, and your score reflects how well he performs.  Plato’s description of the artisan is not far from the video game creator:  “[he] makes everything that grows out of the ground, and creates all living things, himself among others; and, in addition to this, heaven and earth and the gods and all the heavenly bodies and everything in Hades under the earth is his workmanship” (10.595c). These are all appearances, a mock-world in which the audience is invited to observe, and in the case of video games, to directly influence and participate.  Plato does not argue this in order to negate poetry altogether, but simply to deny it the truth that can be ignorantly attributed to it.

Therefore, he delineates real from artificial and presents the moral effects that result from ignoring this distinction.  First, he argues that it seizes upon an object in a small part of its extent, and that small part is itself only an image (10.598b).  So then the “addiction” of poetry is that “he will go on imitating, notwithstanding his being thoroughly ignorant as to the way in which a thing is good or bad.  Apparently he will copy beauty as it appears to the many who do not know... the imitator knows nothing of importance about the things which he imitates, and that therefore imitation is a kind of play and not a serious business” (10.602b).  Does this not particularly address the video game aesthetic?  So we can agree with Plato, the attraction of video games and its influence upon the imitator is the lack of sincerity in itself.  Being able to recognize sincerity is particular of the intelligible human, an attribute children discover early when discipline is or is not administered to regulate their actions.

Thus, the games themselves do not pose a threat to a civilized society, but how we interact with them does, according to Plato. For, “it is our duty to think over the event that has taken place, and to arrange our affairs to take the way which reason pronounces best” (10.604c). So no matter what conflict or situation is presented to us, we are obligated, by our nature, to proceed to take the best way reasonable, like how a child responds to discipline: does he correct himself? or does he continue to rebel?  This is the role we assume in the video game--we subject ourselves to the society the creator has developed.  So the creator, himself, regulates what is developed in the imitated world, and especially the characters.  Plato suggests, “His business is with the irritable and changeable character, because it is easily imitated... he holds intercourse with a part of the soul which is like himself, and not the best part” (10.605-605b).  Thus, because we seek the best way reasonable, we want to be the hero in order to “glory in being able to endure with calmness” (10.605e).   It would be ignorant to believe that the conduct of others does not influence our own, and so imitation is inevitable. Plato argues, “it is not easy matter, after feeding the strength of the principle of pity upon the suffering of others, to keep it under restraint when we suffer ourselves” (10.606b). 

To such a degree, the premise of the video game is this:  we have been given the controls to be able to better a situation for the sake of the greater good of the mock-world.  Thus “bettering a situation” suggests what is good, well-ordered, beneficial, and just.  How far is this from the role of government and authority?  Might children be so attracted to video games because they are given a false authority that is not yet granted to them in reality?  Thus, video games are political.  If they act as a simulation for children to learn how to better a situation within given scenarios and conditions, then what is practiced in theory, void of absolute sincerity, will only be imitated, according to Plato, by he who does not guard himself from the constitution within him.  Plato concludes, “it is wrong to be heedless of justice and the rest of virtue, under the excitement of honor, or wealth, or power, or even of poetry” (10.608b).  Thus, it is the duty of the government to regulate the values of law and justice, in order to teach the next generation what is deemed good and true in a well-ordered society.  This does not ignore the ability for children to choose what is right or wrong, but teaches them the values upon which their society is ordered.  This must be a concern of our leaders, if they are to be what Plato considers the best: the philosopher-king, a disinterested person who rules not for their personal enjoyment but for the good of the polis.  For this is what must be the priority of the gamer in order to reach the highest score.  A game that encourages unnecessary violence and sexual activity is not conducive to these priorities and deceives the ignorant to believe the opposite is true: the personal enjoyment of murdering, stealing, and sexually assault is at the expense of the good.  The insincere imitation directly influences a child’s ethics and the values by which he makes decisions.  Thus, the actual authority exercises its controls, in order to endure with calmness, the real defense against The Video Software Dealers Association.  I agree with Nehamas that if Plato is right, then so are we.

Bibliography

Nehamas, Alexander. “Plato’s Pop Culture Problem, and Ours”.  29 August 2010.

<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/platos-pop-culture-problem-and-ours/.

Plato, The Republic, ed. Andrea Tschemplik, trans. John Llewelyn Davies and David James

Vaughn. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006. pp. 352-69.

“Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger”. United States Court of Appeals, NInth

Circuit. 20 February 2009. <http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1211231.html>.