To “live vicariously” is to life falsely. The very phrase is self-contradicting. Living is genuine while vicariousness is artificial. How can you argue that living vicariously will be beneficial to the real “human experience?” In your essay you claim that living vicariously can teach us about the real world. You say that we can all learn and benefit from these experiences. You say that there unreachable ends of the emotional spectrum exist yet you argue that they are reachable through vicariousness. How is it that these unascertainable emotions can suddenly be experienced? Living vicariously is inevitably a detriment to our society. If we continue to develop games, like the ones you cite, and allow ourselves to dwell in virtual realities we will lose our ability to survive in the real world.
Your first example is that of a vicarious relation to a video game character. In this example you explain how a gamer can manipulate the character and make actions that yield realistic results in a war scenario. The physical detachment from the game is the driving support for the healthiness of this vicarious experience. It is true that one is not physically present within the depicted situation but you fail to recognize the possibility of harm stemming from this experience. Though a gamer cannot be physically harmed by the events in the game they can be, otherwise, disturbed. You say that there are “conflicts evoked by such dramatic circumstance[s]”. Dramatic representation implies a hyper-realistic notion which would be counterproductive to becoming more attuned with reality. A gamer is purposefully exposing themselves to the tragic ideas of war. This is unnecessary. I would argue, rather, that emotions that are “uncharted” due to our non-participation in war should remain untapped. Those who enter war situations are properly trained and debriefed. It should not be necessary for our children to attempt to understand more fully the stress of war if they are fortunate enough to avoid it. Seeking the sensation of every human emotion is unnecessary and dangerous. If a gamer is proficient in the war game and comfortable with all of the emotions that he has confronted during his play will he then consider himself ready for war? Perhaps, he will think superficially of war and fail to understand its tragic reality. If we invest too much in the vicarious experience we will eventually lose touch with true experience and true feelings.
I agree that the human race is, by nature, curious. I also allow that we seek to satisfy those curiosities. However, you argue that living vicariously is the only rational way to do so. I agree that we should not subject ourselves to harm in order to satisfy our curiosity but I cannot agree that living vicariously is the only rational way. I base my rejection simply on its lack of rationality. Though it is a tool it is not genuine and therefore cannot be the most rational way to satisfy curiosity of real and tangible emotion.
You go on to argue that in the video game example one can control the experience. This notion poisons that well of reality. If we are able to control the situation then it is not truly realistic. We do not have the same luxury in life. In the “Life” video game you explain that the gamer can get so deeply attached to the game that they can re-live their life. A gamer can reconstruct their life and then manipulate it to work out the way they wish. Though all humans can probably remember an undesirable outcome of some event in their life they should not rely on a video game to fix that. You argue that we are fee from vulnerability when we utilize vicariousness but if our vicarious connection is deep enough than I would argue we are just as vulnerable. If living vicariously can satisfy our curiosities, purge our emotions, acquaint us with unfamiliar situations, settle our regrets and teach us about real life than when will we have time to engage in real life?
No comments:
Post a Comment