The consequences of axioms

Philosophy can turn up in some unexpected places. Last week, for example, I was discussing with a friend the implications of a certain plot device in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, one I can't discuss here without potentially spoiling the plot for those of you haven't read it yet but want to. What I can say, though, is that in the discussion of this specific plot device, the issue of fate vs. free will came up, as did the issue of whether our actions are predetermined or not. I voiced a few theories about this plot device that I had either heard or come up with myself, and this particular friend I was discussing the book with said that, though my theories were logically/biologically sound, depending on which one he was talking about, he couldn't accept them on a philosophical level, because they destroyed free will. After some prodding, I eventually got him to reveal why he was so against any idea that precluded the existence free will: to him, life isn't worth living if we don't have autonomy, for his free will and the ability to make his own decisions, decisions which actually mean something, is one of the most important things to him. When I go into a discussion with someone I disagree with, I often do so with the intention of trying to either convince them they are wrong or to understand why they believe what they believe to the extent that I can agree to disagree. In this case, the latter happened, for he and I just didn't see eye to eye on the importance of free will, so I left the issue alone.

Reflecting on this discussion, I was reminded of something the philosophy teacher of a friend of mine once said. Philosophy, when it is done rigorously, is a series of "if, then" statements geared towards coming to a conclusion about life, existence, or just about anything. At best, you'll get a series of statements that are logically sound but based on a premise that either can't be proven or is subjective; at worst, you won't even get the first part of that result. Because of this, the most practical use of philosophy for the common man is to determine whether an action or belief is compatible with one's own personal morals. These morals are called axioms, and they form the basis of our person ethics. An axiom, for those who don't know, is a statement that is not proven, or maybe not even provable, but is used as a premise in proving some other statement. In mathematics, for example, one of the basic axioms is that any number multiplied by zero will result in an answer of zero. It's not something we can prove, but it's something we accept as self-evident, and thus it forms the basis for many other rules.

For my friend, the necessity of free choice was one of his axioms, and thus, in order for him to accept a philosophical idea, it had to be compatible with that axiom. I have my own axioms, as well, which form the basis of how I view philosophical issues. One of my axioms is that, as long as people aren't obnoxious about their preferences, no preference, be it a preference in movies, music, television shows, books, or anything, is superior to another. Based on this axiom, I do not judge people for the music they listen to, no matter how much I may dislike it. Now, this doesn't apply to the media itself. I will openly talk about how unlistenable bands like BrokenCYDE are, but if I met someone who liked them, I'd be happy that they found a band that caters to their... unique tastes in music. One of my other axioms is that no action is morally objectionable if it does not impede the freedom of others to do what makes them happy, with the possible (but not universal) exception of impeding the freedom of someone to impede on the freedom of others. Thus, anything my friends may do behind closed doors, as long as it does not cause harm to anyone against their will, is acceptable in my book, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences.

But I'm rambling, for what I really wanted to talk about is the fact that much of rigorous philosophy (potentially all of it, but I'm no one to say whether or not that is true) is based on these kinds of subjective, unprovable axioms. Many of the posts in my own blog are based on certain axioms that I have never really examined, that I have always just accepted as true. These include ideas like maximizing player enjoyment is a good thing, and that Blizzard should act primarily to please their players. Now, I don't apply these axioms universally to every case. Sometimes having something in the game that players claim they don't enjoy will increase the overall enjoyment and satisfaction they get out of the game, and sometimes Blizzard needs to act against what the players want in order to do what is really in the players' best interests. But my point is, ideas like this form the basis for many of the conclusions I come to when I think about WoW, and though I could try to examine them, any justification I try to write for them will inevitably fall back on more axioms, for that is just the nature of logic.

What does this mean for you, reader? This is nothing special I have outlined here; just a basic write-up on the inexact nature of philosophy. With that said, there is something I would like you to take away from it: if you ever disagree with me concerning a point I make in this blog, or you disagree with anyone else in any situation, it might not be a matter of one person being misinformed, or one person having a bogus opinion; it could just be that you and the other person have different axioms, different assumptions on which you base your opinions. If that's the case, then resolving your disagreements might require deeper discussion than you initially expected.

So what are my axioms about World of Warcraft? They're worth listing, for if you have ever found yourself frequently disagreeing with my points, the cause could just be us not seeing eye to eye on some basic tenet of our opinions.

-One of Blizzard's main goals in designing WoW should be to maximize player enjoyment of the game.
-Players don't always know what will make them enjoy the game the most, and Blizzard should keep this in mind as they design the game.
-A change to the game which can increase the enjoyment of the game by some players while not affecting the enjoyment of the game by other players is superior to one which increases the enjoyment of the game of some players at the expense of the enjoyment of the game by other players.
-Homogeneity should be avoided whenever possible, though it isn't always possible to avoid it.
-Blizzard owes nothing to WoW players who have been playing for a long time, no more than they owe to the newer players.