The 'What If It's a Simulation' Game

Many a time have I found myself sat in hall or class, and amidst the rhetorical process expected of a philosophy class (or any class?), a wild remark is to be found. It usually goes something like this (and is usually (but not always) invoked during a topic such as this):

---

“Art is pretty cool, i think a lot about the death of the author…”

“Nah bro, that doesn’t matter… cause we’re probably living in a simulation”

“ok well… maybe sure, but you know i think, the author’s role in a piece is still pretty interesting beca-”

“It doesn’t even matter, cause like, we’re in a simulation and so the art isn’t real, none of this is”

“I mean, maybe?? That’s a pretty useless argumen-”

“It’s the only argument. For there is nothing that transcends it’s importance. Sarte was wrong. The most important question in philosophy is how can I make all other work useless”

Or something less strawman-y to this effect.

---

This to me is the rhetorical equivalent of picking the ball up midway through a game you’re losing and going home.

‘It’s my ball, and I get to do what I want with it!!’

No, it’s our ball

It’s pretty easy to reduce a topic down and convince yourself that you are the enlightened soothsayer, but listen, we killed God a couple years back, and we don’t need to find meaning in our simulation overlords. There is meaning to be found in everything and nothing if you want. Be human, be loving. There is beauty in the nuances of the things we care about, and often it’s easy to get trapped in a false totality too far from the nuance to even notice it matters.

This is not to say grand-encompassing considerations are useless (i like em a lot). It’s just important not to get snared in existential-angst.