[janosett]

I hope that’s true :-)

I don’t have anything against the Buddha, but I don’t like the moralization throughout history of different things that people enjoy — e.g. games or certain types of books and visual art.

This is happening today with video games to some extent.

[kragen]

> I hope that’s true :-)

Yes, in numerous places in the Tipitaka, especially including the sutta I quoted in my top-level comment, Shakyamuni expounded the doctrine that Buddhism can be tested empirically in this life, contrasting Buddhism with other meditative traditions that ask you to take them on faith and promise evidence after you die.

[manachar]

Moralization, as you put it is a fundamental question most humans have at some point.

Is this thing/activity/etc good/bad/neutral?

Additionally, any group of people basically ask the same question with the added problem of should we allow it in our group.

Few people have a problem with individuals and society moralizing about murder.

However, as you note, throughout history there's clearly been a tendency for this moralizing to become weaponized as control mechanisms for hierarchal power. In essence, "good" becomes defined as "does nothing to upset the powerful".

Video games get modern hate for two basic reasons. 1) They're new/different 2) They encourage people to spend time in ways that don't directly support and sometimes directly challenges the current paradigm.

The biggest complaint is that they're a waste of time, but honestly I think most of the ire is that they're just not as profitable. For example, TV used to be fairly negatively seen, but as they became a key part of maintaining our consumer society (via ads), complaints for them went down. As video games become more revenue focused, it seems complaints for them are lowering.

On the reverse side, I think humans could use more moralizing. Not the pearl clutching way, but a more steadfast dedication and education in good ethical systems. Of course, the trick is determining what a good ethical system is.

[scyzoryk_xyz]

To a religious leader a few hundred years back, a 'game' is something totally different from what you and I know as a game. For instance: if you're leading men, and for some reason they're getting drunk and 'gaming' (hazard/dice/whatever) between each other, then that probably might be leading to real internal strife, conflict, violence, desperation etc. It would make sense in that reality, for a leader to subscribe and to propagate teachings/philosophies/doctrines which cut off that possibility.

It's not something I 'like' much either, but it's super interesting to think about why various things were 'banned' (or encouraged!) in different historical realities. These things weren't done by stupid people for stupid reasons.

The video/computer games we have today frequently serve as literature: a source of wisdom, means of companionship, educational simulations of reality. They're a powerful form of art/influence, and we're already seeing some authoritarian states ban or prohibit them.

[enaaem]

Video games nowadays are also really good at hacking people’s dopamine system. Trying to entice people to spend as much time and money as possible. The most important thing is self awareness. Know what a game is doing to you and decide if that is beneficial.

[scyzoryk_xyz]

Exactly - it really matter who you are and how well you’re prepared.