Saturday, April 30, 2016

While I should be writing my Arendt Paper...

I don't want to jinx it but I think I'm developing a state of solace.  I'm learning to love people for their own sake rather than my own.  I'll likely always have at-least mild anxiety periodically throughout my life.  But if I eat right and focus on the right things I know I can mitigate the worst and harness the best.

It can happen.  It's up to me to make it happen.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Poke'mon and Egoism

This is just something quick but I'm playing Poke'mon Black and there's the Team Rocket equivalent in this game called Team Plasma.  They claim to want to liberate Poke'mon from their trainers.  In the end they have nefarious intent but I don't think that disinvalidates the argument they didn't really believe in.

One of the Gary rival characters in the game says at one point:  They want to separate Poke'mon from their trainers.  You might as well have a world without Poke'mon!  This is a very good example of egoism.  Apparently if Poke'mon didn't serve humans then they might as well not exist. Any good their lives can bring to them or other Poke'mon is without significance or merit.  I think unfortunately we often see other people in the same light.

There's a video on PhilosophyTube where the Brit wanker (I actually like the guy but I also like the word 'wanker') goes into how Team Plasma are like Marxist Revolutionaries who see that the Poke'mon are exploited for their labor.  Check it out if it interests you.

On Romanticism, the Sentiments and Love

Romanticism understands the non-rational needs and nature of the human condition.  Schopenhauer is well-known for criticizing Aristotle’s formulation of Man as “Rational Animal.”  Man has reason, says Schopenhauer, but rationality isn’t his defining quality.  Desire, instead, is the main aspect of human nature and experience, and most of life is built upon either attempting to satisfy, ignore or come to terms with these desires and feelings which are the core of the human condition.
Though everyone has some potential for intelligence, in general human beings are driven more by the need for love than knowledge.  And this is all for the better, for while skeptical and anti-realist arguments shows Man will never know reality with absolute knowledge and certainty, we can know love and give love.  Also love influences us phenomologically in a way knowledge never could.  The feelings are so strong in many philosophers understanding of humanity that in the case of Freud he writes that the very purpose of civilization is to create borders, and boundaries around love because it is so intense.
The Stoics seemingly are in-effect Romantics who have given up on love.  They consider dispassionate virtue and forbearance to be the main traits we should focus on, and are not like the Enlightenment figures who focus on the use of reason to cure the ills of human civilization.  The ills they wish to cure are the supposed ills of desire – not civilization’s external dilemmas.  We all know the joys and pains of love, but real love, if it is a form of aesthetics is a form of appreciation of a thing for its own sake rather than simply how it relates to us.  Art is meant to arouse in us the very same feelings as we experience in our lives – though when done well it does it by honing in on the essence of the meaning or substance of these feelings.  This is why characters in great art can seem more “real” than those we interact with in a mundane way in our daily lives.  Aesthetics is a disinterested “non-Ego” approach to the world, but not a dispassionate view of the world.  Art can do many things, and create passions in us for moral and personal development is one of them.
In regards to Romanticism’s criticisms of the Enlightenment project – that depends on what those criticisms are and how they are directed.  If they are criticizing the Enlightenment project of using science, reason and public policy to alleviate suffering then they are clearly mistaken for what they are doing is moving from sentimental appreciation of the emotional realm of human existence and moving into anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism.  If they are criticizing the idea that reason alone can solve all of our problems and “complete” people, make them feel whole and give them personal purpose etc. then they are rightly seeing a flaw in those who appreciate knowledge as something which in theory is superior to the tender feelings.
The core of humanity has not changed in several millennia if it ever has.  We all want love and the feeling our lives are of purpose to others.  We all want kindness and the strength to give kindness without expecting it in return.  We all want to be good people.  But many of us at-least at-times if not generally, because human beings are capable of moral corruption (some could say that moral corruption is the norm – which is true to some degree) lose our way and give up on that which will really make us happy and complete people – loving others for their sake and not our own.
In the Sunset Limited Mr. White informs the suicidal man Prof. Black that the only reason why an alcoholic is motivated to pursue drink is because he cannot or simply believes he cannot have what he truly wants.  Mr. White says that what he truly wants is to be loved by God, and though I disagree with the specifics of his answer, I agree with the rest of his formulation.  People often pursue sensual desires because they believe they cannot have what they truly want which is love, the feeling of goodness and compassion which comes through love and attention to others as opposed to us.  Romanticism is one of the philosophies that understands the connection between feelings and moral goodness.  Morality in our motivations are not determined by reason but by compassion or the good will.  Reason can help us deliberate but it can never give us the normative values that the sentiments provide. 
Both in terms of our own lives and our service to others we are determined by our emotional states primarily or foundationally and not by the states of our knowledge.  Knowledge can guide us and teach us but never command us – only goodness compels us in a way which makes our hearts loyal to others and the best in ourselves.  Only the feelings move the soul and erase the pain of this life; one can know one is cared for without feeling loved, and this predicament is why it is so important to be patient and open-hearted, for at any moment there could be love coming towards us that we cannot emotionally grasp, just as Man is in a position where there are things happening in this Universe that he has no access to.
Ancient biologists thought that the brain only served the purpose of cooling the blood – and in terms of our emotional states they were completely right.  Sometimes our hearts run away with us and we become either impulsive or jaded and defeatist.  But much of this life involves patience and calm acceptance of the present – even appreciation if we become wise enough.  And though we are capable (if fate allows) of appreciating almost any theoretical position or time in our lives, even one that would have us in the depths of despair when absolutely nothing has been altered save our state of mind, we must learn to be calm and kind to ourselves; having our hearts open but not bleeding out in disappointment of not having something we desire.

As I said, true love is love for the things sake rather than whether or not that which we love satisfies any feelings of longing we have.  One form of being Stoic then is not to remove love from the heart but simply to use the mind to cool the blood in our bodies and learn to feel our love more calmly and clearly.  The Stoics, as I said, advise that we should be free from desire – but according to our formulation to be free from desire is not to be free from love.  Through this interpretation, the Cynics, Stoics, Buddhists and others are not telling not to love, but simply to remember what the nature of our affection is – it is selfless and beautiful, and to be carried away with fantasy is to confuse love and longing, or love and selfish desires.  The Cynics tell us to live according to our nature, and to love is one of the most fundamental traits of human nature.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Determined to Change

I've had some emotional problems lately.  Maybe you've noticed.  I've decided I need to make a decision I will stick to and eat better.  I eat fast food nearly every other day, and I know it can't be amicable to a good constitution and general well-being and state of mind.

I know I'll always have low times, that's more-or-less inevitable, but I can make choices in my life to improve my state-of-being, and eating better has to be one of those things.  Honestly I'm slightly surprised my health hasn't deteriorated more than it has.

Hope you're all well.  Wish me luck.

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Here at College

On my floor there's some Conservative dumbshit who's posted a lot of poorly drawn poorly reasoned political comics on his door.  One of them has a fetus saying "where's my right to choose?"  Exactly.  I didn't get a choice to be born.  I was born and now suffer without my consent.  Oh I'm sorry, you were referring to abortion?  The thing that reduces pain for both the parent who doesn't want a child (and most-likely couldn't raise the little fucker properly - and even if she could the child would get fucked up like every other human being one way or another) and the child who never consented to exist and suffers through being born?

People consider abortion a "women's rights" issue.  I consider an issue of whether or not that child has the right to not exist - it does.  Abortion should not only be legal - it should be highly encouraged.

Friday, April 22, 2016

On Human Nature and Asceticism

Despite the wide range of views philosophers have taken across history, one of the more consistent things that they have told us in one form or another is that we should not value pleasure and the things of this world.  That this world is empty and devoid of meaning.  Not only that, the pleasures found in this world are often ruinous and psychologically addictive.  We yearn for things and then fall into despair when the imagined pleasure and meaning we attach to the pleasure is not met or materialized into our lives.  Failure is painful, but the Stoics advise us that we should define ourselves not by what others do to us (if we are loved – a happy fact it doesn’t matter since more-often than not we are not loved) by what we do to others – in-effect we are who we choose to be.
This view, combined with the Stoic mindset of Existential Nihilism and Negative Utilitarianism are perhaps the wisest truths of all philosophy in my view – from the pragmatist outlook of philosophy is supposed to shape our lives not tell us what it cannot about reality.  The two main sects that seem to get the main pragmatic points of our perception to existence, our own identity and what our aims or goals should be (or if we should have personal aims or goals) are Schopenhauer and the Cynics.
The Cynics take the view that the things valued by society are without extrinsic value.  Not merely that society (nor law, religion or any aspect of society) does not determine what is valuable, but what they value is without.  So, for example, someone could take the view that society values money, and though it is valuable not because society says it is it is still valuable; this however is not the view of the Cynics.  The view of the Cynics is that sex, money, power, fame, reputation, love, and all external things that we pursue for pleasure are without intrinsic value.  They give the argument that they do not follow “from Nature” which seemingly all things to be valued are to be found in or derive from.
This emphasis on Nature is a mistake, and Schopenhauer is a philosopher to point it out.  What the Cynics are essentially presuming is a rational and ethical nature of humanity and existence that humans are straying away from.  Quite the contrary.  Our desires, our urges, the drives of our lives and all existence is evil says Schopenhauer, for they bring great pain through lack of satisfaction and through perpetuating this vane veil of tears and sorrow through perpetuating the species and the cultural norms (e.g. capitalism, superficiality, hedonism etc.) that perpetuate both political (social) and psychological (personal) forms of suffering.  Clearly it is better never to have been, but since we cannot undo our births, it is best says many (Cynics, Stoics, Buddhists, Epicureans, Buddhists etc.) to be serene and detach ourselves from this external existence and the sinister desires that keep us attached to this existence.
So in essence it is not nature that we return to but the very thing we reject when we become ascetics and deny the deepest desires of our material existence; we instead focus on the internal life of the mind, since all joy is truly found there though happiness can be created momentarily through satisfaction of desires or through various external stimuli.  Focusing on the life of the internal requires mental training – as the Cynic-Stoics advise for us – and it also involves appreciation of the intellectual and the aesthetic (philosophy and art) since both things create a disinterested or non-personal form of pleasure that cannot be destroyed the way the “false-gods” of love, fame and the pleasures created by the external world can.  In the Old Testament the false-god Mammon, the god of material desires is shunned in favor of the Christian God.  If this is viewed metaphorically, rather than literally, and Mammon is the loves and desires of this world while the Kingdom of God exists in our own minds, then many philosophers would preach the same parable as true and wise.
Many, if not most, philosophers say very comparable things, though some are wiser and make further connections in our intellectual and emotional understanding than others.  Schopenhauer for example realizes that this existence is evil, the Cynics still want to believe our nature is good though they are Anti-Natalists (technically a tenable position but it seems that if our nature was truly good and rational then it wouldn’t be preferable not to have been born) and the Stoics believe all things are good though we should be dispassionate in all things and not value them (which is a contradiction – for if all things were truly good and to be valued then it would not be an error to attach ourselves to external existence).  All three are wise but despite the errors of Schopenhauer he seems to have the most accurate and complete picture of the dispassionate view of existence.  His appreciation of art should be combined with the Cynics insistence that philosophy must be lived (it exists to help people – to be practical – not to depict or debate the constituents of reality) to finish the picture of things. 
Philosophy is not meant to discover reality.  It is only meant to discover the nature of things to the extent we discover whether we should value the practical or the Noumenal – and we discover what Kant could not in knowing it is the practical and not the Noumenal which has value.  For of course Kant thought that if we have free will in the Noumenal (which he says if memory serves we might or do if God exists so he assumes wrongly that we do) this supersedes the apparent lack of free will in the phenomenal knowable realm of existence.  Quite the contrary.  Though it is true that we could theoretically (though we’ll never know) have free will in the Noumenal realm, it is the phenomenal and practical realm of existence which only has value and meaning to us.  If I told you in a way that you would know with absolute certainty that a tiger was not in reality a tiger but a rabbit would you rush over to pet it?  Most-likely not, and just as if some hypothetical absolute source of knowledge told us we were crabs, we would not scuttle to the beach and crack shells, so whether or not free will or God or anything else in the Noumenal has no effect on our lives.  Our lives are experienced in this world (which is full of delusion and deception on some levels – and may be a deception altogether) and we must cut ourselves off from both the intellectual vanity of attempting to discover the Noumenal and the false hopes of love and desire in this material world. 

Philosophy in the personal realm is as depicted by the philosophers I have previously mentioned; in the ethical it is concern for our fellow sufferers who inhabit this evil world with us; and in the political sub-division of the ethical it is having the policies and institutions put in place so people can live freely and with as little pain as possible.  In the ethical realm we should be compelled to practice compassion for all life (to the extent possible).  One of the founders of Cynicism said he would rather go mad than feel pleasure, and Schopenhauer (though it is stated implicitly by many other wise men) says that which we must always remember for it is perhaps the greatest piece of wisdom ever uttered:  it is far-better to pursue lack of pain than pursue pleasure.  If we remember this, all desires that have our heart race slips away, and we can once again be dispassionate enough to pursue the life of the mind and creativity rather than the false-gods of status, fame and love.

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Happiness Comes from Within

I don't want to speak too soon but I feel like I've finally re-discovered myself.  Things were shaky there for a while, but I've re-learned to view the external world as worthless and that happiness is to be found inside myself.

Monday, April 18, 2016

On Teleology Negative Utilitarianism and Existential Nihilism

On Teleology Negative Utilitarianism and Existential Nihilism

If we look at the existence that it appears we all share, we come to the conclusion that all possibilities for biological existence will one day end and that this is good.  That it is good is of course a normative claim and can never be validated by simply saying that it will occur – but it is good through the lack of pain (and therefore the lack of existence) being a good.
Inside every newborn baby is a rotting corpse just dying to show itself.  It is a fundamental mistake of human perception, showing our pro-natal (pro-existence) bias that sees life as good and death as bad; that sees vitality as virtuous in the normative sense.  For just as the tree naturally grows, time and time again we see it is part of its teleology to wither and die – to say one is preferable and one is not the way society does is entirely on this unfounded pro-natal bias towards life and irrational dis-taste for death.  For Aristotle is right in his biological depictions of living things.  Human beings while alive display certain traits which we label as “healthy” for this or that reason.  However, what is not properly argued is the normative value of the correct function of the organism – that is of health and virtue.
What if there were a race of beings that existed for a thousand years, and in their virtue, that is, while in their proper mode of functioning they excreted painful fluids throughout their extremities which aided in reproduction for fellow sufferers – more damned souls to suffer needlessly for a thousand years?  Would we say this races’ virtue is a good?  The only substantial difference between them and us is that if we are to exist it does benefit us (individually and society-wise) to have some of the things conventionally conceived as virtues to alleviate or prevent suffering.  However, vitality is Nature’s greatest curse, for it is the vital man who suffers for a century.  It is the wretched and repulsive which know the grace of death quickly.
Human beings are the most sensitive of all creatures neurologically, the most vital, and without our intellect we would suffer incredibly through the pains created by Nature – even with our intellect and modern conveniences we suffer incredibly through both external and internal pains.  Though teleology has nothing to do with normative claims, it is a happy coincidence that the end (telos) of all things is the preferred end – an end where no beings capable of experiencing pain exist.
I have previously in past essays illustrated the divide between “actual” and “pragmatic” and the “personal” and the “ethical” and how human beings should spend their time while living their meaningless and worthless existence.  People often know what it is to be done but it remains undone due-to the egotistical and evil nature of most people most of the time.  But this hubris and evil dies with the person, and since they could not do otherwise, it is wrong to hate them for their smallness and vanity.  All of human endeavor is either killing time (personal) or trying to aid our fellow sufferers who like us would have been better not being (ethics).  This has nothing to do with what exists and what does not in-regards to the Noumenon, but philosophy, like art and science, should only be concerned with the Phenomenal or “pragmatic” realm of existence in which it appears we communally experience.
So much of our time is spent distracting ourselves, deluding ourselves, stimulating our capacity to take pleasure in the meaningless and the vane; the superficial and the trivial.  Existence itself is trivial and the only thing that holds significance pragmatically (though perhaps not “noumenally” – that we will never know, though our ignorance in such things is irrelevant) is pain – the only absolute cure for pain is death. 
Humans cling to illusions of positive meaning and significance through love, religion and various other illusions, but ultimately these things produce more pain than pleasure even if they are successful in their aims of satisfaction – which they can be momentarily but not absolutely due-to the nature of humans and our craving.  Humans yearn to believe in the “passionate” mode of existence which so many philosophers implicitly or explicitly warn against – it is this passionate mode of existence which implicitly wishes for us to do the impossible and justify our existence through this positive significance and satisfaction of said positive normative claim of meaning or value (as opposed to the negative significance of an existence devoid of pain).
Though many philosophers warn us into falling into the illusions of love and passion, it is the Cynics and the Stoics who dedicate the most attention to these questions of mental states.  The Stoic Man is the man who has found peace in himself by killing passions.  The passionate part of us feels sad that we must, to be rational, kill this beautiful feeling, this hope, this love, but we must remember that we are unlikely to attain the object of our desires and even if we did we would be unlikely to be as happy as we imagined ourselves in our fantasies – that the happiness produced would be worth the miseries of wanting is unlikely pragmatically and simply not true in the sense that pain is the main thing we should avoid rather than pursue pleasure or any other positive aim, goal or objective.
The Cynics are far-more wise than the Stoics for their early advocacy of Anti-Natalism.  The Stoics are wise but fall into unforgivable error when they both try to say we should be dispassionate (there is nothing to value; we should be Existential Nihilists) and yet say that all their Pantheistic God has made is good (has positive meaning or value) and all evil we see and experience is through our own weakness or ignorance.  This is foolish.  If we adopt the “dispassionate” mode of existence and care for nothing personally, if we see the Universe as an empty place filled with billions of lightyears of so-much nothing, then we cannot say that this existence is good.  The dispassionate mode of existence can be good through lacking the evil; that is, because it rightly lacks the pains and assertions of value, meaning or feelings of passion that bring pain it is good – though at its very best it can never be more good than death, for in death the corpse is as content and as serene as the Buddhist Monk who has achieved Nirvana.
In a sense, Nietzsche is the philosopher who, despite being in error, corrects the error of the Stoics by removing the contradiction of dispassionate living and positive assertions of meaning and value.  He says we should live passionately and not rationally, we should be bold and impulsive, building our houses on shaky but beautiful places, and he is the philosopher who tries the hardest to vindicate existence through the existence of some good.  Essentially his “amor fati” is an attempt to vindicate all of existence by claiming that through causality if one thing has positive meaning or value than all of existence is validated through “all things being necessary.”  Though he is correct in reasoning in that which is necessary for this supposedly “positive significance” he goes far too-far in vindicating all the particulars in existence for the greatness of Beethoven’s music for example, which he fails to demonstrate has any value outside of utilitarian conceptions.
He also fails in demonstrating that anything has any positive meaning, intrinsic value, purpose or meaning; which of course means that even if he could demonstrate that the existence of positive meaning in one thing vindicates all things as good he fails through demonstrating anything as “supremely good” or containing innate value.  Nietzsche’s attempts to ground existence positively in the passions and the Great Souled Man is much like the Christians grounding existence in God ironically, making the same error as the Christians who without merit think that just because a hypothetical God exists our lives are meaningful – even if a God did exist this is a descriptive claim and has nothing to do with the normative realm of existence.  A vain attempt to ground or justify an existence which can never be justified except to the extent that it can alleviate the burdens of others – that is fulfilling the negative significant role of existence of seeking to eradicate suffering.  It is telling that he says that his only resignation will be “turning away[1],” for one has to turn his head from the stark and glaring truth of the world to see it as a purposeful and valuable thing intrinsically.
This should not be surprising – yet it always is to the common folk and leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many.  The wisest prophets have always said we live for others and not for ourselves, and yet people are shocked and scream in horror when the wise tell them existence is empty and meaningless – devoid of any personal meaning, value, or significance to attach ourselves to.
It will not do to let the mob revolt or even so much as peep forth from its hiding-place; it is hideous of mien, and its rebel leaders are those flights of imagination which I have been describing.  The smallest annoyance, whether it comes from our fellow men or from the things around us, may swell up into a monster of dreadful aspect, putting us at our wits’ end – and all because we go on brooding over our troubles and painting them in the most glaring colours and on the largest scale.  It is much better to take a very calm and prosaic view of what is disagreeable; for that is the easiest way of bearing it.
…We often try to banish the gloom and despondency of the present by speculating upon our chances of success in the future; a process which leads us to invent a great many chimaerical hopes.  Every one of them contains the germ of illusion, and disappointment is inevitable when our hopes are shattered by the hard facts of life. Arthur Schopenhauer

[1] I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Rediscovering Childhood Classics - again

Also beat Super Mario Sunshine again in the last few hours.  I managed to get almost eighty out of the hundred and twenty shine sprites.  I'm not going to bother trying to get them all.  Honestly, I was never much for collecting all the poke'mon and all of that.  Managed to get to the wolf in Twilight Princess.  It plays much better with a gamecube controller as opposed to the wiimote.  Though it sold the most consoles of that generation, honestly I consider the Wii to be a step-back gameplay wise.  It's fun for families to play for an hour or two during the holidays, otherwise all they do is collect dust in people's entertainment centers.  A small part of me still wants to play games like Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Pikmin 3, but they really don't make it worth getting the console; also I still have Twilight Princess and Metroid to beat.  And after that if I'm liking LoZ maybe I'll try Wind Waker.

Just another day in the life.

Saturday, April 16, 2016

Return to the Classics - and by classics I mean a fifteen and a twelve year old game

In the last week I've beaten Pikmin and Pikmin 2 again.  I've beaten them both a few times in my life, and I thoroughly enjoyed playing through these Gamecube classics again.  Haven't been able to play Pikmin 3 yet and I'm definitely not buying a Wii U just for that and Super Mario Maker.  I might try and run through Metroid Prime and/or Twilight Princess.  LoZ was a series I've wanted to get into but never have.

Maybe I'll try and beat Spyro A Hero's Tale which is a game I had growing up but never beat partly because it was one of the few Spyro games that didn't catch my attention.  I personally didn't like the switching to different characters.

I have two papers to work on in the next few weeks so I wouldn't be expecting a lot of material from me.  When I do have free time I'll probably be spending it on other things other than writing.  I'll have plenty of time to focus on my own writing(s) and ideas during summer.

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

The World and Reality

As a practically make a division between the personal and ethical realm of existence, so I make a distinction between the ‘practical’ and ‘actual’ or ‘noumenal’ realm of existence as the Pragmatists do.  As an Anti-Realist, I would claim that the purpose of science is not to discover reality but conceive of theories that conform to our sense data – our experience.  So the same is true with aesthetics and ethics.  In the “pragmatic” realm of existence – the world that we see and hear, the world we have to live and suffer in – aesthetics is the subjective feeling of the beautiful and the ethical is how humans (or other sentient beings) are to ideally behave as to have the least possible suffering.  However, this is completely compatible with moral falibilism if we make the previously mentioned partitioned in existence.
Falibilism – the view that morality could be objective in nature, humans are simply incapable of conceiving of the external standard that exists – seems completely plausible and even reasonable when we are not dealing with this sensible world.  If we are dealing with reality with a capital ‘R,’ just as we can never know the true nature of reality descriptively, we are barred from it in-regards to normative claims.  However, just as science functions consistently as a pragmatic tool of getting an increasingly accurate account of this world via experience (and the use of instrumentation and reason), so ethics is a too humans can use to live better lives – the best lives being that which are the most freed from the agonies of this existence.  Therefore if one is to make this in-effect Kantian division, except to rename the phenomenal realm of existence the “practical” realm or dimension of existence, it is entirely possible to be both a Moral Skeptic or Falibilist in the Noumenal realm, and yet a Negative Utilitarian in the practical one.

Aesthetics is the same.  Practically speaking the study of beauty is the study of the human experience of beauty – for who else or by what standard except our own arbitrary and meaninglessness biases are we to refer?  However, in this supposed “real reality” there could be objective criteria of beauty that we human beings have no way of accessing.  However, when we deal with science, art and morality pragmatically, we are not dealing with “reality” but human beings (and other life forms to varying extents) and how we experience the world (both factually and aesthetically) and how we can improve this world morally through aiding what appears to be (but we can never be absolutely sure of the existence of) our fellow sufferers.

Sunday, April 3, 2016

Blah Blah Blah Pumpernickle Blah

Just beat Crash Twinsanity.  Pretty good game.  Gameplay wise I'd put it around a B+/A-.  I personally prefer the level format of the other games, but I do like the change of having it be one long playthrough (or world) as well.  Interesting idea and its executed well asides from a few kinks and areas I didn't care for.

Difficulty wise I'd put it somewhere between the first Bandicoot and the second and third (can't remember how difficult the fourth one was, but I'd probably put it just below this one difficulty wise; the second and third one's are fun but really easy honestly).  Not much of a challenge but what I really loved about the game was its self-aware humor. You could tell it was made for people who grew up with Crash even though the first one came out only eight years before this one came out - which itself was twelve years ago; damn I'm old.

Beat the entire Crash series then - or at-least the ones I'm interested in.  I don't find beating the handheld games or the last two (which are entirely different gameplay wise) appealing.  So good bye Crash.  You were and still are my favorite platforming series - even more than Mario.  I might try to emulate the Gamecube and Wii now so I can play Pikmin and Super Mario Galaxy 2 (which I never played - didn't get into the Wii very-much).  Otherwise its just random games to momentarily play to kill time for me for the time being.

Take care.