On Nov 25, 2007 11:12 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You apparently don't think its important that the
writers of a
contemporary computer game know something about some particular
important philosopher, and expect at least some of the players to
appreciate the reference.
Other people may think it quite significant. Those interested in the
philosopher are generally interested in his further reception, and can
be expected to find it fascinating that he has made his way into that
part of our culture. Those interested in the games culture will be
interested to know what sort of figures are used as referents--whom
the authors assume they are writing for. I as an educator find it very
valuable & heartening to know that at least in some superficial level
there is a continuation of the intellectual tradition. As I don't have
much direct familiarity with most computer games, I learn out most of
what I do know about that aspect of things from Wikipedia.
It's easy to denigrate the importance of the part of the world we're
not interested in. It's been decades since I've seen a televised
wrestling match, and I intend to never see one in the future, but if I
ever do want to know about them, they'll be in WP. I never expect to
be on the Kuala Lumpur Monorail, but I might want see a news or
fiction reference someday to something that happened there, and want
to know about the stations.
Context is key. I don't see much use in a trivia section in
[[Malaysia]] listing every film that's ever made a reference to it,
even though someone might conceivably find it useful. Most trivia can
find a useful home elsewhere. Information is not useful unless it is
placed in the proper context.
Johnleemk