Sometimes serious ideas emerge from the strangest places. Last week Harman tossed an offhand question onto his blog: Who is the most overrated philosopher?. It sparked quite serious discussion all over. So serious that before long, Harman found himself wondering if an anthology of opinions on “overrated philosophers” could indeed become a serious work of philosophy.
I now find myself in a similar position. Late last week I’d started working on a philosopher parlor game to answer Harman’s, but this weekend it magically transformed into a serious project. As if I need another one of those.
I was procrastinating during the arduous process of completing my talk for the microtalk session at the Game Developers Conference in two weeks. I was thinking about the overrated philosopher issue, and what other angles one might take on it. I wondered, how many philosophers are we able to recognize?
Thanks to the format of the microtalks, I had constraint on the brain. My curiosity took the form of fashioning portraits of philosophers in 7×7 pixels. Here are some samples:
Before I knew it I’d done sixty of them.
Then it struck me: what if I paired condensed form of a philosopher with a very condensed take on their thinking? I decided to match the 7×7 pixel constraint with its written equivalent: a 7×7 letter slab poem (that is, seven lines of seven letters each). Furthermore, and keeping with the theme of sevens, the poems would be composed in iambic heptameter (that is, each would be seven feet long). Behold a proof of concept, Immanuel Kant:
Note that the seven-letter lines really push me to consolidate ideas into simpler and more compact terms. There’s just no room for haughty philosopher phrases like “transcendental idealism.” Seeing this example made me think that this really might be a worthwhile creative exercise. And maybe even a worthwhile philosophical one.
So, now I’m thinking about a book of philosopher pixel- and slab poetry. You can imagine the layout: the image would appear on the verso of a spread, the poem on the recto.
The question is, who would publish such a thing? It’s hard to pin down its genre, exactly. Then there’s the matter of form: the book would have to be square in shape, of course, and printed in color. That’s a custom job for sure, and a relatively expensive one compared to black text in a standard trim size.
Indeed, I decided to post about this project at such an early stage partly to see if I could spur interest from or recommendations for a publisher. I’m completely serious about this, even if it takes a while to realize (I have other books to finish first!).
In the meantime, I still want to run my own little philosophy parlor game. Let’s do it in the form of a contest. To the first person to correctly identify all six of the pixel-philosophers above, I will award the following:
- a custom seven-pixel-square portrait of the winner, or anyone else of his or her choosing
- a signed copy of this book, if ever it appears in print
Put your responses in the comments below, listing your guesses of the names of the philosophers in order of their appearance above (top left to bottom right). I may or may not intervene in the comments depending on how difficult this proves.
Update: After just over a day since I posted, Michael Austin succeeds! Now the question is, should I restart the contest with new philosophers…
Comments
Carl
1. Sartre.
2. Russell.
3. Aquinas.
4. Socrates.
5. Nussbaum.
6. Wittgenstein.
Ian Bogost
Now I suppose I have to decide how I’m going to respond… Hmm.
Carl, I think for now, I’d better say simply: you did not get all six correct. That’s a splendidly ambiguous response, isn’t it :)? I might loosen up my feedback as I see how this goes.
Thomas
1. is Hegel, the sloppy hair and sideburns are the clue. Did he have blue eyes? All the portraits I can think of have been in black and white.
2. generic dead white philosopher (or Republican house member). This is going to be the hardest one to guess correctly. Maybe Rorty? Kind of squarish cheeks.
3. Aquinas (he makes a good space invader btw)
I like Carl’s guesses for 4-6. I’ll guess them too.
4. Socrates
5. Nussbaum
6. Wittgenstein
Michael Austin
I think this is a great idea and I can’t wait to see more of these little guys. Now you just need to take them and make an rpg!
Here are my guesses:
1. Hegel
2. Russell
3. Aquinas
4. Plato
5. Nussbaum
6. Wittgenstein
Ian Bogost
Michael: Indeed, the FF-style philosopher RPG might be just the thing!
I’ll give both you and Carl a little more of a clue this morning: both of you have at least one correct, and, that ain’t Martha Nussbaum.
Fabio
I’d say:
1. Hegel.
2. Hume.
3. Aquinas.
4. Plato.
5. Nussbaum.
6. Wittgenstein.
Quite uncertain on number 2: I said Hume because looks like wearing a wig and quite fatty. My favourite portrait: number 1.
Ian Bogost
Fabio, #2 is a tough one. It’s not Hume though. I wouldn’t say he’s fat so much as wide-headed.
Also, see above, #5 isn’t Nussbaum. Interesting that everyone guessed her.
Ian Bogost
Thomas, sorry I missed your comment before. A few more hints:
First, there’s a portrait of Hegel by Schlesinger in which his eyes are blue.
Second, I can confirm that #2 is dead, but it’s not Rorty. That said, I am particularly happy with my rendition of Rorty; I may share that later. He’s very distinctive despite being yet another white guy.
Third, everyone has both #4 and #5 wrong.
Paul Ennis
”The question is, who would publish such a thing?”
Zero? Either way I’d buy it for sure.
Ian Bogost
Huh, I didn’t even think of Zero for some reason. Maybe because all their books so far are prose argument with black text on white pages. But hell, maybe they would do it.
Robert Jackson
Right, here we go,
1. Hegel
2. Schelling (the early years)
3. Aquinas
4. I’m plumping for Aristotle here
5. is by far the hardest and I’m totally unsure, but I’m thinking outside the box and going with Naomi Klein? (probably far too outside the box)
6. Wittgenstein
Ian Bogost
Robert, alas, you’re no closer than the others. It does seem that all of you have settled on Hegel, Aquinas, and Wittgenstein though. That’s all I’m going to say about that.
One more hint on numbers 2, 4, and 5: you’re in the wrong era. Everyone is.
Klein’s too far outside the box, indeed. It does point to the fact that I had to make a number of choices about the philosophical canon. Who counts as a philosopher? is a tough question to answer.
Clayton Hughes
While not a book, my initial thought was that this might be well-suited to DS Homebrew.
Robert Jackson
One more go before I sleep,
I’m ignoring your double bluff Bogost, 8-p and sticking with #1 #3 and #6.
#1 Hegel
#2 I’m going for Sartre this time
#3 Aquinas
#4 To hell with it, I’m going with Dennett (poet)
#5 Still unsure this ones even female, so lets try Sloterdijk
#6 Wittgenstein
I’ll lay off this for now, but this is a cunning challenge, one worthy of Monkey Island, but not irrtiatingly impossible, like Battletoads.
Ian Bogost
Here’s a clue about #4: i could just as easily have made a younger, browner-haired/bearded version of that one. Indeed, that might have been more appropriate, in a certain way.
Carl
All of the female philosophers I can think of have dark hair, except Nussbaum.
Does St. Nick count as a philosopher for #4? He went to the Council of Nicaea. Theology is like philosophy, sort of.
What about Hemmingway? He was my first thought, actually.
It can’t be Aristotle. His hair is brown.
Ian Bogost
Carl, on the would-be Nussbaum, I’d encourage you to look back before the 20th c.
#4 isn’t Aristotle. In fact, he’s not of the same era, even remotely.
Thomas
2nd try
1. Hegel
2. It has to be 19th or 20th century because of the tie. I’m not sure if he has a wide enough head to fit the clue, but he kind of looks like his hair is brushed back so I’ll say Lacan. (Or maybe it is not a tie, maybe it is a tongue. In that case I’ll stick with Lacan.)
3. Aquinas
4. Freud
5. Blond ponytails: Hildegard?
6. Wittgenstein
Ian Bogost
Thomas, you’re getting closer on all fronts.
On #2, your reasoning is sound, but he doesn’t really look like Lacan right? I mean, if you look at photos. He does look French to me though.
On #4, Freud has a Van Dyke, not a full beard, and not nearly this much hair on his head.
On #5, you’re moving in the right direction, but I doubt Hildegard would ever have let her hair down.
Michael Austin
Attempt #2
1. Hegel
2. Derrida
3. Aquinas
4. Kripke
5. Hypatia of Alexandria
6. Wittgenstein
Ian Bogost
Michael! You’re So Close!
That is all.
Simon Ferrari
4 could be Zizek. Going by the bleary eyes, unkempt hair and beard, and ugly gray t-shirt (which, if you could see below the shoulders, would be soaked in sweat). But his hair isn’t quite that uniformly gray yet, so I’m probably wrong.
Ian Bogost
Simon, check my Twitter history for Zizek
Carl
Hypatia is Egyptian: dark hair.
Ian Bogost
Hypatia wasn’t Egyptian, she was Greek, living in Roman Egypt. Naturally, nobody really knows what Hypatia looked like, but many take their cues from paintings by Raphael and Charles William Mitchell…
Michael Austin
Attempt #3 (Is there a limit to how many guesses we get? Am I cheating right now?)
1. Hegel
2. Levinas
3. Aquinas
4. Kripke
5. Hypatia of Alexandria
6. Wittgenstein
Ian Bogost
Michael’s got it! Bravo!
Now you get to choose the source for your 7-pixel reward.
Ian Bogost
Now the question is, should I post six more and start over…
Ian McCarthy
of course!
Michael Austin
Hurray for me! Ian, I’ll find a decent picture of myself and email it to you. I’m so excited to have my first official portrait!
Carl
For the journal Hypatia, they got an Egyptian to be their cover model. :-/
Of course, the real question is, â??Whoâ??s an Egyptian?â? The Copts? The Arabs? Anyone who ever lived in Egypt?
Eric
BEINGAS
ABEARER
OFSENSE
ENFOLDS
ITSTIME
TANGLED
BLOSSOM
Eric
Or maybe,
BEINGAS
ALODGER
OFSENSE
ENFOLDS
ITSTIME
TANGLED
DWELLER
Ian Bogost
It’s rather an appealing mode of summary, isn’t it Eric?
Eric
Yes, it really was a nice prism for rethinking what little I pretend to understand of Heidegger. A kind of pixelated philosophical mnemonics.