A Philosophy of “Doing” in the Digital

  • Stefano GualeniEmail author


Playing in counterpoint with the general theoretical orientation of the book, this chapter does not focus its attention on the recording and archiving capabilities of the digital medium. Instead, it proposes an understanding of the digital medium that focuses on its disclosing various forms of “doing.” Gualeni’s chapter begins by offering an understanding of “doing in the digital” that methodologically separates “doing as acting” from “doing as making.” After setting its theoretical framework, the chapter discusses an “interactive thought experiment” designed by the author (titled Something Something Soup Something) that is analyzed as a digital artifact leveraging both dimensions of “doing in the digital” for philosophical purposes. In extreme synthesis, one could say that this chapter is about several kinds of soups.



Several, recurring conversations with Michelle Westerlaken in the past months were both inspiring and shaping for the arguments offered in this chapter. If this text adds anything interesting or useful to the current discourse, she is probably the one to blame for that. In this acknowledgments section I would also like to thank Johnathan Harrington and Isabelle Kniestedt, who significantly contributed to the design and the development of Something Something Soup Something, to the preliminary research and technical work leading to it, and to the editing of this chapter.


  1. Aarseth, Espen. 1997. Cybertext. Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baird, Davis. 2004. Thing Knowledge. A Philosophy of Scientific Instruments. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. van Binsbergen, Wim. 1997. Virtuality as a Key Concept in the Study of Globalisation. Den Haag: WOTRO.Google Scholar
  4. Bogost, Ian. 2007. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2012. Alien Phenomenology, or What It’s Like to Be a Thing. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolter, Jay, and Richard Grusin. 2000. Remediation. Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Calleja, Gordon. 2011. In-Game. From Immersion to Incorporation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chalmers, David. 2016. The Virtual and the Real. Disputatio (forthcoming). Accessed December 3, 2017.
  9. Davies, David. 2008. Can Film Be a Philosophical Medium? Postgraduate Journal of Aesthetics 5 (1): 1–20.Google Scholar
  10. Driessen, Clements. 2014. Animal Deliberation. The Co-Evolution of Technology and Ethics on the Farm. PhD diss., Wageningen University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gee, James Paul. 2007. Good Video Games and Good Learning. Collected Essays on Video Games, Learning and Literacy. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gendler, Tamar Szabó. 1998. Galileo and the Indispensability of Thought Experiments. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49: 397–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gualeni, Stefano. 2014a. Augmented Ontologies; or, How to Philosophize with a Digital Hammer. Philosophy & Technology 27 (2): 177–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2014b. Freer than We Think: Game Design as a Liberation Practice. In Proceedings of the 2014 Philosophy of Computer Games Conference in Istanbul, Turkey, November 12–15, 2014.
  15. ———. 2015. Virtual Worlds as Philosophical Tools. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ———. 2016. Self-Reflexive Video Games: Observations and Corollaries on Virtual Worlds as Philosophical Artifacts. G|A|M|E—The Italian Journal of Game Studies 5 (1).
  17. Harrington, Johnathan. 2017. Something Something Game Something. In Proceedings of The Philosophy of Computer Games Conference, Krakow, Poland.Google Scholar
  18. Lévy, Pierre. 1998. Qu’est-ce que le virtuel? Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  19. Manovich, Lev. 2001. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2013. Software Takes Command. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  21. McCarty, Willard. 2005. Humanities Computing. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Murray, Janet. 1998. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 2003. Inventing the Medium. In The New Media Reader, ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick Montfort, 3–5. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Parker, Felan. 2011. In the Domain of Optional Rules: Foucault’s Aesthetic Self-Fashioning and Expansive Gameplay. In Proceedings of the 2011 Philosophy of Computer Games Conference, Panteion University of Athens, Greece, April 6–9, 2011.
  25. Ramsay, Stephan, and Geoffrey Rockwell. 2012. Developing Things: Notes Towards an Epistemology of Building in the Digital Humanities. In Debates in the Digital Humanities, ed. Matthew K. Gold, 75–84. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Riva, Giuseppe, Brenda K. Wiederhold, and Andrea Gaggioli. 2016. Being Different: The Transformative Potential of Virtual Reality. Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine 14: 3–6.Google Scholar
  27. Rosch, Eleanor, and Carolyn B. Mervis. 1975. Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories. Cognitive Psychology 7 (4): 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Verbeek, Peter Paul. 2005. What Things Do. Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Westerlaken, Michelle. 2017. Aesthetic Self-Fashioning in Action: Zelda’s Vegan Run. In Proceedings of the 2017 Philosophy of Computer Games conference in Krakow, Poland, 2017.Google Scholar
  30. Westerlaken, Michelle, and Stefano Gualeni. 2017. A Dialogue Concerning ‘Doing Philosophy with and within Computer Games’—or: Twenty Rainy Minutes in Krakow. In Proceedings of the 2017 Philosophy of Computer Games Conference in Krakow, Poland, 2017.Google Scholar
  31. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1961. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 1986. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Digital GamesUniversity of MaltaMsidaMalta

Personalised recommendations