On Nov 25, 2007 11:12 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@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