Alexandre Declos

Recent debates in the ontology of games have primarily focused on questions of individuation and persistence. By contrast, the problem of the nature of games has received limited attention. This paper aims to address this gap by examining what kind of entities games are. After surveying several possible answers to that question, which I argue to be unsuccessful, I explore the view that games are abstract artifacts. I consider how this theory can be developed and motivated, as well as some challenges it faces.

Les étoiles, par leur éloignement spatial et leur ancienneté, semblent incarner l’absolue indépendance à l’égard de l’humain. Selon Nelson Goodman, nous les avons pourtant « construites ». Cette affirmation paradoxale s’inscrit dans le cadre de ce que Goodman appelle le worldmaking : l’idée qu’il n’y a pas de réalité brute, mais seulement des versions du monde que nous façonnons par nos systèmes symboliques. Cet article explore cette thèse radicale et la controverse qu’elle a suscitée, pour interroger les limites de notre pouvoir de construction.

Although toys are culturally ubiquitous, they have received little attention in the philosophical tradition. Existing accounts define toys in contrast to games or purely in relation to play. I argue that both strategies are inadequate: the former offers only a negative and incomplete account, while the latter is overly broad. As an alternative, I propose a novel definition of toys based on a set of individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions: x is a toy if and only if x is an artifactual, inanimate, and manipulable continuant, whose proper function—by design or appropriation—is to enable open-ended play, and where x, when replicating a technical artifact of kind K, lacks the proper function of the Ks.

Although toys are culturally ubiquitous, they have received little attention in the philosophical tradition. Existing accounts define toys in contrast to games or purely in relation to play. I argue that both strategies are inadequate: the former offers only a negative and incomplete account, while the latter is overly broad. As an alternative, I propose a novel definition of toys based on a set of individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions: x is a toy if and only if x is an artifactual, inanimate, and manipulable continuant, whose proper function—by design or appropriation—is to enable open-ended play, and where x, when replicating a technical artifact of kind K, lacks the proper function of the Ks.

This paper introduces and analyzes the notion of aesthetic bias in generative AI. I argue that AI models systematically privilege certain aesthetically-relevant features while marginalizing others. Drawing on examples from popular text-to-image generators, I highlight recurring tendencies, such as a preference for beauty, spectacle, saturation, or symmetry. These aesthetic biases carry specific risks: they disguise aesthetic preferences as neutrality, threaten to homogenize artistic production and taste, but also contribute to creating self-enclosed communities of appreciators, or “aesthetic bubbles.” The upshot is that aesthetic bias in AI demands serious study.

In this paper, we examine an overlooked answer to the Special Composition Question (SCQ), termed “Mereological Anti-Conservatism.” This view posits that extraordinary objects exist but that ordinary objects do not. For example, while tables and chairs do not exist, the mereological sums of these items do correspond to real objects. Although such a claim may initially seem absurd, we argue that (i) it is entirely derived from the claims and commitments of traditional rival theories—Nihilism, Universalism, and Conservatism; (ii) it resolves several issues that plague Conservatism, such as problems of vagueness, change and persistence, and the shortcomings of common sense; and (iii) it offers a more plausible perspective than Conservatism when considering the vast scale of possible worlds with differently segmented realities. Ultimately, we contend that if Anti-Conservatism is deemed implausible, then Conservatism must be as well, for structurally similar reasons.

What are the identity and persistence conditions of videogames? This paper surveys the contemporary philosophical literature on this topic. Specifically, I discuss various views which attempt to ground the identity of videogame works in their rules, in their algorithmic structure, in their source code, or in contextual parameters surrounding gameplay. While these proposals all have merits of their own, I argue that none of them are satisfactory. My conclusion is therefore negative: we still lack an adequate theoretical model to account for the identity and persistence conditions of videogames.

Watching other people play videogames —a.k.a. ‘spectator gaming’— is a widespread practice. Yet, it is considered by some as an inadequate form of engagement with games. In this paper, I show that the strongest objection to spectator gaming relies on the claim that some properties of videogames are better, if not exclusively, accessible to the player. After that, I propose two replies to this challenge. The first is that ‘secondary players’, i.e., individuals who indirectly take part in the game, can access the relevant properties. The second reply is that even paradigmatic spectators may engage in simulated play, and therefore, access these properties as well.

David Chalmers argues that virtual reality is a genuine kind of reality. In one of its readings, this “virtual realism” states that virtual entities ontologically depend on real digital entities. This article explores that suggestion and offers a novel account of the dependence of the virtual on the digital. Drawing on Lynne Rudder Baker's theory of constitution, we contend that virtual objects should be seen as constituted by digital objects, when these are placed in certain favourable circumstances. We explore the rationale and implications of this view, which we see as a promising form of virtual realism.

According to David Chalmers, the virtual entities found in Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) environments instantiate virtual properties of a specific kind. It has recently been objected that such a view (i) can’t extend to all types of properties; (ii) leads to a proliferation of property-types; (iii) implausibly ascribes massive errors to VR and AR users; and (iv) faces an analogue of Jackson’s “many-property problem”. My first objective here is to show that advocates of virtual properties can deal with each of these objections. The other goal of this paper is to examine the consequences of Chalmers’ theory in the particular case of AR. If we countenance virtual properties, AR highlights that non-virtual objects can possess both non-virtual and virtual properties. With AR, it also appears that a same non-virtual object can have different and even incompatible properties across augmented environments. Lastly, considering properties in light of AR highlights the risk of an “augmented solipsism”, and calls forth interesting questions about the persistence conditions of non-virtual objects in AR environments.

Interactivity is commonly perceived as the defining feature of digital technologies, and by extension, of fictions or works produced through these technologies – ranging from hypertextual literature and videogames to net art. However, it remains to be seen how interactivity should be characterized exactly. One may also wonder whether the hopes frequently associated with this notion are reasonable. After casting some doubt on the possibility of defining a unique and all-inclusive concept of interactivity, we argue that it is more profitable to admit types and degrees of interactivity. We try to show why this pluralist and gradualist account is preferable to several theories of interactivity discussed in the recent literature. Lastly, we hold that this view helps assessing the role of interactivity in the medium of videogames, and reveals the intrinsic limitations of the interactive fictions found therein.

In this paper, I examine Nelson Goodman’s pluriworldism, understood as the claim that there exists a plurality of actual worlds. This proposal has generally been quickly dismissed in the philosophical literature. I argue that we ought to take it more seriously. As I show, many of the prima facie objections to pluriworldism may receive straightforward answers. I also examine in detail Goodman’s argument for the conclusion that there are many worlds and attempt to show how it might be supported. Eventually, I discuss some underexplored challenges to pluriworldism.

Dans cet article, je propose d’examiner un aspect relativement méconnu de la philosophie de l’art de Nelson Goodman, à savoir sa théorie de la variation, succinctement exposée dans Reconceptions en philosophie (Goodman & Elgin, 1988). Si la variation est un procédé courant dans les arts, son fonctionnement reste difficile à cerner. Goodman défend qu’il s’agit d’une opération sémiotique et référentielle complexe : la variation implique l’exemplification de caractéristiques partagées et constrastées, ainsi qu’une référence de la variation au thème via ces caractéristiques exemplifiées. Comme je le défends ici, cette théorie de la variation peut s’appliquer de manière fructueuse au jeu vidéo. La variation y est non seulement plus fréquente et saillante que dans d’autres formes artistiques, mais fournit même une clé de compréhension du medium vidéoludique. Elle préside à la création des jeux vidéo, à leur fonctionnement, à l’activité ludique, et finalement à la valeur épistémique et hédonique du jeu. Le jeu vidéo peut donc être foncièrement compris comme un art de la variation, où il s’agit essentiellement d’explorer et d’épuiser des variations autour d’un même thème.

David Chalmers a récemment soutenu que la réalité virtuelle est réelle, plutôt que fictionnelle. Dans cet article, j’examine les implications ontologiques de ce « réalisme virtuel ». Comme je le suggère, cette position s’associe naturellement à une ontologie algorithmique, qui identifie les objets virtuels à des structures de données comprises de manière fonctionnelle. Je présente ensuite plusieurs objections à cette ontologie algorithmique. Tant que celles-ci ne sont pas réglées, la question de l’identité des mondes et des objets virtuels reste encore en suspens.

The aim of this article is to examine and defend videogame cognitivism (VC). According to VC, videogames can be a source of cognitive successes (such as true beliefs, knowledge or understanding) for their players. While the possibility of videogame-based learning has been an extensive topic of discussion in the last decades, the epistemological underpinnings of these debates often remain unclear. I propose that VC is a domain- specific brand of aesthetic cognitivism, which should be carefully distinguished from other views that also insist on the cognitive or educational potential of videogames. After these clarifications, I discuss and assess different broad strategies to motivate VC: propositionalism, experientialism, and neocognitivism. These map the different ways in which videogames can prove epistemically valuable, showing them to be, respectively, sources of propositional knowledge, experiential knowledge, and understanding. I eventually argue that neocognitivism is a particularly promising and yet underexplored way to defend VC.

Mereological Nominalism, as traditionally understood, states that properties are mereological wholes and that instantiation is mereological. Thus defined, this view faces a number of well-known issues, which make it virtually untenable. Recently, Effingham :160–185, 2020) has offered an alternative account of Mereological Nominalism, which intends to avoid these problems by accepting while rejecting. In this paper, we argue that this theory is not viable for two main reasons. First, it faces a threat of circularity. Second, the various non-mereological accounts of instantiation envisioned by Effingham in order to replace seem inconsistent with.

In this paper, I examine Peter Schulte’s “Grounding Nominalism” (Schulte, 2018), understood as the claim that first-order properties and relations are grounded in the concrete particulars which instantiate them. While Schulte offered reasons to think that this view is consistent, along with answers to a number of objections, a more straightforward argument for GN is still needed. I take on this task here, by discussing and defending what I call the “argument from abstraction”. The latter, I suggest, offers more grounds to Grounding Nominalism.

This paper advocates a new reading of Nelson Goodman’s new riddle of induction. According to Ian Hacking, this famous problem conveys a “pure nominalism”, as it grounds Goodman’s denial regarding the existence of natural kinds. While this interpretation is somewhat convincing, it suffers the major flaw of not corresponding to what Goodman himself understood by “nominalism”. Nominalism, in a goodmanian sense, is indeed primarily a technical demand, which stems from the so-called “calculus of individuals”. I argue that this mereological definition of nominalism allows to understand the new riddle of induction afresh. As a result, Goodman’s riddle is “hyper-nominalist”, i.e., nominalist in a distinct and stronger sense than what Hacking suggested.

This paper considers the medium of videogames from a goodmanian standpoint. After some preliminary clarifications and definitions, I examine the ontological status of videogames. Against several existing accounts, I hold that what grounds their identity qua work types is code. The rest of the paper is dedicated to the epistemology of videogaming. Drawing on Nelson Goodman and Catherine Elgin's works, I suggest that the best model to defend videogame cognitivism appeals to the notion of understanding.

It is a common experience to be surprised by an artwork. In this paper, I examine how and why this obvious fact matters for philosophical aesthetics. Following recent works in psychology and philosophers such as Davidson or Scheffler, we will see that surprise qualifies as an emotion of a special kind, essentially “cognitive” or “epistemic” in its nature and functioning. After some preliminary considerations, I wish to hold two general claims: the first one will be that surprise is somehow related to aesthetic appreciation, because it is often the ground to judge of a work’s value. The second point will be that a functional analysis of surprise provides support for cognitivist accounts of aesthetics. If this picture is right, surprise would generally play an important part in aesthetic experience and should also be seen as a paradigm to study the cognitive powers of art.

Il a souvent été remarqué que Pascal produit une pensée inquiétante de la condition humaine, mais plus rarement qu’il est aussi et surtout un penseur fondamental de l’inquiétude en elle-même. À partir d’une étude systématique de cette dernière notion dans les Pensées, nous voulons montrer qu’elle admet plusieurs visages mais aussi plusieurs usages sous la plume de l’apologiste. Si elle manifeste toute la misère de l’homme dans la réflexion anthropologique, l’inquiétude fonctionne également comme un outil apologétique et rhétorique visant à toucher le lecteur. Enfin, Pascal prescrit le modèle d’une saine inquiétude spirituelle, lui conférant un rôle normatif et régulateur dans la conversion. Nous défendons ainsi que l’inquiétude livre le cœur de la vision pascalienne de l’homme, mais qu’elle figure surtout le seul chemin possible pour se tourner vers Dieu.