February 22, 2014 § 111 Comments
I’m an essentialist, which means that in my understanding things are what they are and can’t be changed into something else via language games, assertions of the will, analogies, or other rhetorical shenanigans. All that those language games accomplish is to butcher our capacity to communicate with each other about reality: as the tower of babel is built toward the Heavens to try to be like little Gods, what actually happens is we just lose our ability to talk to each other. People can express varying loyalties to independently existent things like liberalism or game; but the thing remains what it is independent of their personal loyalties or limitations in their own understanding of the object of their loyalty.
So understanding what game really is in essence involves observing it as a social reality. I can’t just make it into what I want it to be by assertion of labels. I can’t “steal it” and repurpose it toward good ends if it isn’t already a good thing. I have to observe what it is and make as objectively honest an assessment of it as I can, independent of whatever implications may follow from accepting reality as it actually is rather than as I might like it to be. I can’t change the reality of what game actually is by shuffling around labels: calling a duck a tiger doesn’t put a bill and webbed feet on Tony.
A good definition can’t capture everything about a thing, but it will point us toward the essence of a thing; a bad definition will obfuscate essential aspects of what it purports to define.
Given that background, I’ve concluded for myself that the following are good definitions:
game (n): the male behavioral expression of inchastity
sluttiness (n) : the female behavioral expression of inchastity