philosophy essay mario

Mario, Everyman

It’s his profound average-ness that makes the classic Nintendo character so special.

In what’s become one of the more iconic stories from video-game history, everyone’s favorite Italian plumber was almost named “Jumpman.” Minoru Arakawa, the first president of Nintendo of America, had clashed with the company’s landlord over several months of unpaid rent. Recounting the tussle with his colleagues, Arakawa reportedly joked that their irascible landlord bore some resemblance to the protagonist of the company’s latest arcade game, Donkey Kong . So first in office lore, and then in subsequent games, “Jumpman” was rechristened in honor of their landlord’s given name: Mario.

• Why We Love Mario
• The 100 Million Deaths of the Martyr We Call Mario
• Forget Mario. Let's Talk About Peach.

Mario’s miraculous evolution from office joke to cultural phenomenon has paralleled the development of video games as a creative medium. So it’s worth asking, 30 years after the debut of Super Mario, why and how Mario commands the kind of cultural influence he does. The simplest but least gratifying explanation is simply Mario’s popularity: As of 2015, the character has been featured in more than 116 distinct titles (not counting remakes and re-releases), with over 220 million copies sold. Still, other franchises have sold in similar numbers yet their characters cannot hope to match Mario’s cultural power; sales alone can’t explain Mario’s privileged place in the pantheon of video-game characters.

More important is the immense range of references to Mario in games and other media. When Jonathan Blow designed Braid , his artful deconstruction of the video-game protagonist, he chose Mario—single-minded, hopelessly devoted Mario—as his referent. And though the visual artist Cory Arcangel could have hacked virtually any ‘80s game cartridge, he chose Super Mario Bros. as the basis for his famous image-generator Super Mario Clouds , now in the collection of the Whitney Museum of American Art.

Impressive though these statistics and litany of allusions are, they can at most establish the truth of Mario’s popularity. Pressed to explain “why?,” they fail to yield compelling answers. Why should Mario, an “average Joe” if there ever was one, have achieved greater fame than Donkey Kong, the eponymous antagonist in Mario’s debut? How is it that Mario, whose vocational history (plumbing, carpentry, sanitation, etc.) hardly lends itself to world-saving antics, has established himself as the spokesman for an entire medium?

The “secret” to Mario’s popularity lies in his profound average-ness, which allows him to easily adapt to virtually any context. More than once, I’ve heard Mario referred to as a video-game “Ur-Symbol.” This prefix isn’t idle, and helps explain why Mario first garnered and has maintained such cultural power.

Depending on what etymology you accept, “Ur-” is derived from the Sumerian metropolis of the same name, whose recurrent appearance in Western philosophy testifies to the ancient city’s central role in European myth-making, as well as its tremendous conceptual flexibility. When Hegel laid out his teleology of human civilization, he modeled history as a Western tide that originated in the “Near East” but settled on the shores of Europe—Ur to Rome, in other words. The appeal of Ur, in this sense, lies in its evocation of a primal moment, distant enough to be irrefutable but still capable of relevance in changing cultural contexts.

Paradoxically, the Ur-symbol is both eternal and protean. It can be assigned a variety of traits without losing its distinctness. Its qualities are not internal, but external: It means what we need it to. The most famous manifestation of the Ur-symbol is likely the image of Jesus Christ, which has proved an endlessly adaptable anchor of an imagined spiritual community. In his own way, Mario has become a gaming Ur-symbol: His continued relevance through nearly every major paradigm shift in the medium’s history—arcade to console, two dimensions to three, subcultural hobby to ubiquitous pastime—attests to Mario’s unparalleled ability to remain relevant in an ever more heterogeneous community of players and games.

Consider the cast of recurring characters—Peach, Luigi, Bowser, etc.—that accompany (or antagonize) Mario in games set in the Mushroom Kingdom. Though many have starred in their own titles, the identity of each is typically constructed in terms of their relationship to Mario: Luigi is Mario’s brother, Peach, Mario’s lover, Wario, Mario’s anti-hero, and so on. When we call supporting characters’ own titles spin-offs, we acknowledge that there’s something off which they are spinning: that something is, of course, Mario.

In this sense, social life in the Mushroom Kingdom is centered on and around Mario. By extension, the narratives derived from these relations can never escape Mario’s influence, whether or not he is present. And because of the center-periphery relationship between Mario and his acquaintances, games ( WarioWare, Inc. , Luigi’s Mansion , etc.) that center on any other character than Mario inevitably have a sense of novelty about them.

It’s no surprise, then, that Mario is nearly always the “default” in games that offer multiple playable characters. On the character selection screen of each iteration of Mario Kart , Mario Party , and Super Smash Bros. , Mario occupies the first (that is, top left) position in the character grid. Moreover, in games that offer differing stats and abilities for their characters, Mario is nearly always the “standard” character—no particular strengths, but no glaring weaknesses either. When in Mario Kart Toad is labeled as “light” and Bowser as “heavy,” it’s the regulatory presence of oh-so-normal Mario that makes such value judgments possible.

Mario’s cardinal trait is simply his “default-ness.” Other characters are inevitably judged on Mario’s terms, and some of their otherness is simply that they are not Mario. The process of establishing their own identities depends, in part, on making it clear that they are not Mario. At the same time, this opens up tremendous flexibility for Mario in terms of the identities he can assume. Over time, this has enabled Mario to pursue a peripatetic vocational itinerary, changing careers like the rest of us change clothes. When other characters are “marked” by the fact that they are not Mario, then Mario himself may be “marked” in any number of ways—Paper Mario, Dr. Mario, Baby Mario ... the list goes on. Perhaps for that reason, Mario has been able to bear the ideas, dreams, and criticisms of countless designers, writers, and players. Perhaps for that reason, he is gaming’s only Ur-symbol.

This is not, however, to discount the role that Mario’s social normativity—a white, straight, middle-class, salt-of-the-earth working man—has played in establishing his place atop the hierarchy of game characters. It is no coincidence that Mario looks like he could belong to one of the demographics that the game industry has served most closely. Books could be written about how Mario, intentionally or no, has reflected and participated in debates over the political values embedded in games and gaming culture.

If that seems a bit unfair to poor Mario, who was never meant as a political statement (except, perhaps, in his turn as a semi-willing ecological activist in 2002’s Super Mario Sunshine ), I am surely sympathetic. Realistically, Mario’s race and gender have more to do with the technical challenges designers faced in the early 1980s than with any conspiratorial marketing ploy. Yet to have a legacy is to outlive one’s best and worst intentions. This is the nature of symbols, especially Ur-symbols, which are defined by their capacity to outlive and transcend their “originary” meanings. How else can something so “old” perpetually seem so “new”?

The point isn’t that games need a spokesperson who represents the diversity of the gaming populace (such a spokesperson would surely be impossible), or that Nintendo should be shamed for decisions made so long so, back when the company could barely pay its rent. Rather, it’s that if we have accepted Mario as the putative social and formal center of gaming’s most iconic franchise, then we players also inhabit his periphery at least as much as Nintendo’s other characters do. Our “otherness” is simply that we are not Mario.

As players, writers, and fans we all have our claim to him, at least as much as he has a claim on us (just as Jesus, or even Ur, may still matter for those who believe they do). What we know and say about Mario is a measure of what we know of the “other” in ourselves. The diversity of ideas that emerge from Mario speak to our desire to make meanings of his image, eternal and protean, like that mythic capital of an imagined past. To Ur, of course, is human.

Hegel thought as much with his notion of “Urteil,” a concentration of meanings bound within an object that may be teased out over time. These meanings, though, exist sui generis : It is the beholder’s job to reveal them, like Michelangelo seeing his angels trapped in marble. Yet Hegel, in some ways, misstates the truth: The meanings have always been our own. The myth of Ur was always already an image of something lost, mediated not only by the passing of time but by the changing needs of its beholders. Myth, then and now, needs to be animated to be meaningful. Meaning, in other words, needs a player. Mario means nothing until he’s in our hands, wielded and wound up through controllers and keyboards. He’s any man, he’s every man; he’s no man at all.

The Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture Series

Mario’s philosophical odyssey, by edwardo pérez.

I must confess, I have no idea how to play Super Mario Odyssey – other games such as Mario Kart , New Super Mario Bros ., and Super Mario 3D World fit my skill level, but Odyssey baffles me. My nine-year-old son, however, mastered it out of the box as if he were Mario himself – confident, brave, and resolved to defeat Bowser and save Peach no matter how strange or difficult the journey. It’s admirable how easily he handles it. And yet, I persist – playing the role of an old man trying to learn a young man’s game.

Is it a vain, meaningless endeavor on my part? Am I doomed to fail? Or, is there something worthwhile in trying to complete the journey? (Something beyond the thrill of a second childhood). Given the state of our world these days, maybe I’m just burying my head in digital sand (which in Odyssey ’s Sand Kingdom level is a nice crimson red), afraid to face the strangeness of what has become our daily reality. (Really, how does our current “long national nightmare” end? Will we find our way out of this mess or are we, as Fitzgerald concludes in The Great Gatsby , doomed to “beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past”?)

Certainly, there’s a parallel not just to Gatsby (Mario searching for Peach; Gatsby longing for Daisy – both seemingly futile quests) but to Homer’s Odyssey , too. Mario as Odysseus is easy to see and his visits to all the strange realms in the game are as fantastical as any of the islands Odysseus encountered. But, given the contemporaneousness of the game, it’s difficult not to view Super Mario Odyssey as representing the absurd trek our nation is on – from Twitter to Facebook to Russia to Porn stars to Nuclear War to Amazon to Fake News to Caravans to whatever breaking news breaks (Trump as Bowser?). And, this is part of my dilemma – can I really justify playing a game while all this is going on? Or, is there something relevant and didactic about Super Mario Odyssey ? Am I learning about morality or am I practicing immorality?

Indeed, Super Mario Odyssey is quite different from Nintendo’s previous Mario games, not just visually (which at times is stunning) but also narratively – Mario is alone, his only companion is a hat named Cappy (hence the image of Mario wearing a cap that has eyes). And, this not only makes the game essentially a one player game (if you do two-player mode, the second player is Cappy, but it’s not as much fun, as the intuitiveness and instinctive moves you’d make if you were playing alone is diminished, if not absent) it makes the game an exercise in confused isolation (it’s Campbell’s Hero’s Journey sans erstwhile companions, a Lord of the Rings with no fellowship, just Frodo and the ring). Half the time (despite what my son has tried to teach me), I have no idea what I’m doing.

Put another way, the nature of the game reflects the individuality of our world (where I also have no idea what I’m doing more than half the time) – we may be waiting for the “singularity” to show up and usher in a new era of artificial existence, but really, it’s already here (at least in a metaphorical sense), as most of us seem to go about our lives in our own individual universe, living in our own Plato’s Cave (because in a world where most of us don’t really learn how to share anymore, we must have our own designer cave). But, it’s not that we’re unaware of others (it’s not as if everything around us is a reflection of reality projected on a cave wall that we don’t realize is being projected). Rather, it’s that we don’t really care that others exist – and if we do care (to be even more cynical) we care because we want something in return (A nice Ikea Jansjö reading lamp for our cave?).

For Arthur Schopenhauer (a philosopher, I must admit, I don’t often agree with) we do this because “no action can take place without a sufficient motive.” As Schopenhauer sees it, when we take actions that benefit ourselves, we’re being egoistic and such actions can have no moral worth. (So, by this logic, playing any game, perhaps especially alone, is morally worthless – because it’s all just an ego trip). As Schopenhauer states, “if an act is to have moral value, then no egoist object, direct or indirect, near or remote, may be its motive.” So, what does this mean for Mario? Do we consider his winning of coins, stars, and moons as a benefit to him? Or, because Mario has to win coins, stars, and moons in order to unlock levels and realms so that he can ultimately get to Peach, does he really benefit himself?

In Schopenhauer’s logic, we’re essentially always selfish. No matter what reasoning we use to justify our actions, it all eventually comes back as a benefit to ourselves. So, Mario is selfish. However, Schopenhauer observes one exception: compassion. As Schopenhauer defines it, compassion is “the direct participation, independent of all ulterior considerations, in the sufferings of another, leading to sympathetic assistance in the effort to prevent or remove them.” So, when Mario battles Piranha Plants, Bullet Bills, Cheep Cheeps, and other assorted antagonists along the way, he’s removing all these goons to help Peach. So, we could suggest Mario is doing this out of compassion – so he’s not selfish?

For Schopenhauer, compassion is the basis of morality, or, as he frames it in his book, compassion is “The Only True Moral Incentive.” More plainly, just about everything we do lacks moral worth unless we’re doing it for someone else’s benefit. The only way to be moral is to be compassionate. So, if we want to think of Mario as moral, we need to see his actions through a compassionate lens. Otherwise, he’s just as selfish as Bowser.

As Timothy J. Madigan observes, Schopenhauer views life as being united not by religion but by “the realization that life itself consists of endless suffering the through the pursuit of goals which can never be satisfied. This pursuit ultimately results in a meaningless death.” (Which is why I’m not a fan of Schopenhauer). While Schopenhauer concludes that it would be better to not live at all, he at least concedes that since we’re alive we might as well be compassionate – or, as Madigan states, “we at least have a moral obligation to not increase suffering. We must be patient and tolerant, and show charity toward other fellowsuffering beings.”

So, we can only be moral by being compassionate, but being compassionate is nothing more than a moral obligation to not make things worse? Is Schopenhauer right? Is morality reduced to an obligation? And, are we all really selfish, concerned only with things that benefit ourselves? (Go Fund Me?) Is that why Super Mario Odyssey is really just a one player game – because it’s meant to signify the singular, selfish nature of our existence? After all, the whole reason Nintendo made the Switch console (which is what you need to buy in order to play Odyssey ) is so that players can have the best of both worlds: a tablet that plugs in to the TV and that you can play on the go (it’s a Wii-U and DS lovechild). But still, tablets aren’t really built for sharing.

Or, maybe Schopenhauer is wrong, at least about compassion being the only basis of morality. Certainly, other moral philosophers (from Aristotle to Kant to Nietzsche) might take issue with Schopenhauer (as much as he does with them). In any case, I see Mario as embodying Schopenhauer’s definition of compassion, doing all he can for Peach because he cares for her at the expense of himself. At the very least, I contend that Mario’s actions are moral, not because he’s acting out of obligation but because he’s acting out of love, which, for Mario, seems unconditional and selfless.

To be clear, we could also analyze Mario through altruism, he’s certainly kind and he’s certainly placing others before himself – he fits this definition, too. Yet, compassion is what seems to drive him to be altruistic, especially if we consider the literal meaning of compassion as “to suffer with.” That’s what Mario is doing, isn’t he? And, because he doesn’t really ever talk, we only know what Mario feels and thinks through his expertly rendered facial expressions (he looks compassionate). He’s not just trying to save Peach (or anyone else) because it’s the morally right thing to do (whether we judge his actions based on kindness, duty, utility, consequence, or obligation) but because it’s the compassionate thing to do. He’s not even really doing it out of sympathy or empathy or virtue, such as with the Greek concept of eudaemonism – Mario doesn’t seem concerned with his actions producing well-being for himself. Rather, Mario’s concerned with the well-being of others. Thus, Mario helps and saves his friends because he’s emotionally invested in them, he cares about them (loves them), he shares their pain, and his concern is palpable, not just in his face but in his resolve.

Even if Mario gets angry (he has a cool angry face), it’s justified because Bowser and Bowser’s gang of thugs are cruel jerks who operate with complete selfish disregard for others. More to the point, Mario’s happiness and anger come from the same place: his compassion. He’s happy when he’s helping them and he’s angry when they’re being harmed – and none of this has anything to do with his own well-being. Nor, does it ever seem selfish or egoistic.

It’s worth noting that Mario isn’t the only current character embracing compassion in our cultural ethos – just look at any of the characters form Marvel’s MCU films and you’ll see portraits of compassion in nearly every scene of every film (perhaps one of the reasons Black Panther is still going strong at the box office has to do with T’Challa’s compassion, which, like Mario’s, taps into a zeitgeist longing for someone to care about more than their Twitter followers).

Of course, compassion is not a new concept. Indeed, the role or purpose of compassion has been debated for quite some time. Ancient Greeks dismissed it in favor of reason (because compassion is too emotional), while Hinduism views compassion as a virtue, with the concept of Daya being the most similar to our Western understanding of compassion. For Hinduism, Daya resembles the Golden Rule, suggesting not just that we treat others as we’d like to be treated, but that we should treat others (friends, enemies, and strangers) as if they were ourselves. In this point of view, all living creatures are one (or parts of a whole) so compassion is simply acknowledging the relationship between all living things, that we’re part of all life and all life is part of us (as T’Challa claims, we’re all “one single tribe”). For Super Mario Odyssey , we’re all part of the journey and the journey is part of us. As the saying goes, it’s supposed to be about the journey, not the destination. For Super Mario Odyssey and for Mario himself, it’s about why we’re on the journey.

So, yes, I (foolishly) play on, knowing that beating Bowser and saving Peach isn’t really my goal (it’s not realistic anyway and if it were, then it’d take me about as long as Odysseus took getting home to Penelope and by then Nintendo would come out with a whole other system that I’d have to learn). Rather, my goal is simply to choose to beat on, current be damned, knowing that trying to save my metaphorical “Peach” (and everyone in my life she represents) is all that matters because, as Thor says in Ragnarok , “that’s what heroes (husbands? fathers?) do.”

Ultimately, I think this is what makes Mario so compelling (and what has made his cultural, “everyman” presence so enduring since he first appeared in 1981’s Donkey Kong ), he’s the natural hero we all know we can be and not just hope to be – all it takes is a little persistence, some compassion, and a lot of unlimited play. Because, yes, the journey never ends and that’s a good thing. After all, none of us ever really wants to see “Game Over,” even if we happen to win.

Edwardo Pérez is an Associate Professor of English at Tarrant County College in Hurst, Texas. He also manages his own philosophical Web site: lightsabertoss.com .

References:

Madigan, Timothy J. “Nietzsche & Schopenhauer On Compassion.” philosophynow.org , 2000.

Schopenhauer, Arthur. The Basis of Morality . Trans. Arthur Brodrick Bullock. Project Gutenberg, 2014.

Super Mario Odyssey . Nintendo, 2017.

Share this:

Related posts.

Download FREE ‘Philosophy Spotlight’ app

Letter from the Series Editor

Arrow and Philosophy: The Ethics of Retributive Justice

Get your FREE e-book: The Best of Philosophy and Pop Culture!

Shark Tank and Philosophy: Mr. Wonderful and Plato’s Pursuit of Truth

Philosophy and Pop Culture – want to get involved?

Burning Man and Philosophy: Love in the Desert

Kyle Johnson talks to Google about ‘Inception and Philosophy: Because It’s Never Just a Dream’

Which Super Power Would You Choose? Flying or Invisibility – VIDEO

Alice in Chains and Philosophy: Camus Gets a Facelift

Leave a comment cancel reply.

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

This class is no longer available, but we found something similar!

1:1 Coaching -- Anxiety, Mindset, Mindfulness, Stress, ADHD, Anger, Etc. (25min)

1-to-1 Social Skills Course- Assertiveness, Self-Awareness & Social Confidence

Etiquette and Manners Essentials 1:1 I Teacher With 30 Years Experience

Restaurant Ready: A Restaurant Etiquette Class for Kids

1:1 Social Skills Empowerment: Build Confidence and Social Intelligence

Let's Study: Super Spelling Strategies A2+ CEFR

The philosophy of mario: a metaphysical discussion of mario's journey.

Class experience

Group Class

This class is no longer offered, financial assistance  , outschool international  , get the app  .

More to Explore  

Classes by age  , classes by grade  .

Destroying thought in order to save it

The lone survivor of a doomed expedition, a philosophical look at super mario brothers, part i.

A philosophical look at Super Mario Brothers, part I: Who has the power?

One cannot doubt Mario’s innate abilities.  For a short stocky man with only a modest blue collar plumbing background, he harbors truly astounding athletic talents.  First, he has the remarkable ability to jump several times his own height:  from a flat standing position, he can jump about three times his height; with just a bit of a running start he can leap much higher and farther; and from a crouch can reach heights still more impressive.  Further, he can easily maneuver himself in mid-air to alter his flight path.  He can endure numerous physical injuries, including (but not limited to) numerous blows to the head, electrocution, falling onto spikes, animal bites, giant hammer blows, and squashings.  He can hold his breath underwater for a few minutes, even while enjoying a vigorous swim (and can harvest meager air bubbles or even metabolize undersea coins to obtain more oxygen).  He can carry thousands of star bits or coins the size of his head without any affect on his physical performance (one wonders, in fact, just where he keeps all of them, even with all the pockets a denim jumper affords; but this is another discussion).  And most impressive, he can even reincarnate his physical being, instantaneously, upon actual physical death, provided only that he has an extra small green mushroom on hand (and even if he doesn’t, he can still be reincarnated, it just takes a bit longer and he might re-appear at another location).  He can do all this while wearing a binding animal suit. He can do all of this without losing his hat .

All that said, and with all due reverence to this tiny, god-like man, the fact of the matter is that a large portion of his success must be due to the laughable incompetence of his principal adversary.  Perhaps one of Mario’s greatest assets is the ability to pick his enemies, yes? For every one of Mario’s fantastic talents there is an equally terrible strategic decision made by Bowser.

Bowser boasts an intimidating physical presence and apparent vast wealth.  He has castles upon castles, unchallenged leadership over a realm of minions, some terrific architects and engineers on staff, a large happy family, and an obvious flair for design.  But rather than enjoy his privileged status, he is instead consumed by an irrational desire to control something he cannot have: the life of Princess Toadstool.  Why this obsession burns within him is never clear.  It cannot be for money.  One could argue that he seeks only more power: the Mushroom Kingdom would be an impressive holding; however, Bowser seems to make few plays for it other than kidnapping its monarch and gloating over the accomplishment, rather than using the opportunity to institute any policy changes.  No–I believe his motivation must be purely personal.  His only goal seems to be symbolic.  The Princess is always treated well.  He makes no demands on the denizens of the Mushroom Kingdom.  He simply laughs at being able to kidnap her over and over again–it smacks of being a simple diversion for someone endlessly rich and bored.

Here we arrive at the first lamentable strategic decision made by Bowser.  Rather than stash the Princess away and consider the feat a job well done, he cannot help but boast of his work.  Even the act of kidnapping the Princess shows Bowser’s interest in being noticed.  The most recent kidnappings have been earth-quaking demonstrations of largess calling grand attentions on his misdeeds.  No quiet smuggling her away in the night with a threatening ransom note for Bowser.  He wants everyone in the Mushroom Kingdom to know what he’s done and much evidence suggests that Bowser even encourages Mario to attempt a rescue.

This falls into line with the “for entertainment” theory.  Should Mario shrug and say, “I’ve warned her repeatedly to beef up her personal security. I’ve lost too many lives pursuing her for reward no better than a slice of cake and a kiss on the cheek.  This is someone else’s problem”, Bowser would undoubtedly find this infuriatingly out-of-bounds.  Given that Bowser has it entirely within his power to assassinate the Princess or leverage her kidnapping to get something else, we must assume that he does all of this only to spur Mario into action, so the game can once again commence.  For his part, Mario must take on this task yet again or risk real retribution from Bowser.  He can’t simply leave her be, he must rescue her.  Even though with his powers and Bowser’s strategic failings, he knows for certain he will succeed, yet he is still forced to go through with the task, like just another of life’s endless rote errands.  But the point, from Bowser’s perspective, is that Mario has to do this.  In this way, Bowser does indeed wield true power over a god.

*A detailed account of Bowser’s strategic failings

*Theories on Mario’s abilities

About Josh W.

Flash Gordon. Quarterback. New York Jets. View all posts by Josh W. →

Looking forward to parts 2 & 3.

But I mean, like, no pressure or anything.

Oh, I’ll get to them. I actually think I could write a few beyond that. I thought a lot about these over the last few days of playing a *lot* of Super Mario Galaxy 2. Although at the rate I post these days it might take until August.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Chapter 2: Literacies at work, for fun, and at school

2.11 Mario Kart: Just a game or a way of life? (argument from experience)

English 102, february 2020.

Mario and Luigi have had a presence in my life   since 2009 when   Super Mario Bros   was released on   the Nintendo Wii.   At the time I was   8, and I had no idea how much I would fall in love with the game and   characters.   Growing up with the basic Nintendo Wii, games that involved Mario and the “gang” were always the most fun. My parents would all play with   us   and it was a great bonding experience for my family.    Mario Kart 8   has influenced my life since the start of my freshmen year   in college. My roommates and I bonded over Mario Kart. Our evenings   always involve a round of Grand Prix and can always continue for hours.   Mario Kart has continuously brought us joy and the sounds the characters make   allow us to get so wrapped   up   into the game   it has almost become an escape from the real world and all the stressors we encounter. My roommates and I tend to be blasting music and just focus on winning.   While I was thinking about some of the discourses I’m involved in, I realized some people have never had the privilege to play   Mario Kart 8 .    

A discourse is   how a group of people speak and or act in a certain situation.   The discourse in the Nintendo realm is understood by anyone who’s played any game by Nintendo.   Nintendo games are viewed as a stress reliever by most fans. Players play to have fun. Nintendo has   its   own discourse; however,   Mario   Kart 8   has its own discourse   as well.   Mario Kart has been   a part   of the Nintendo discourse since 1992 when it was first released.   When Mario Kart was introduced into the Nintendo realm, most of the discourse was the   same from previous Nintendo games. As the years pass and the more Mario Kart games get released, the larger the community gets.   While the Mario   Kart discourse grew,   the Nintendo discourse would grow with it.   People who only play   Mario Kart   tend to   investigate   other games made by Nintendo after playing.   Which, in turn,   enables the Nintendo community to increase in size.   Lifelong Nintendo fans also follow any new game   which   is being released so both discourses work hand in hand.    

For someone who has never played a video game, the language and discourse present   throughout   the game can easily confuse them.   Right off the bat, the menu   for   Mario   Kart is simple. It first asks how many players there are, if you want to play online,   or play wirelessly.  After you select what you want, it then shows the three   to four   types of “games” you can play.   If someone decides they want to play with just one player, they will be provided with four options to choose from. The choices are Grand Prix, Time Trails,   VS Race, and Battle. This is where it gets a little tricky with the language.   All the words they use make sense   and are straightforward; however, without knowing the rules or the context of how Mario Kart uses the words could be confusing. The textbook definition of Grand Prix is “any of a series of auto-racing or motorcycling contests forming part of a world championship series,”   and while this can be applied to the Mario Kart universe, there is a slight difference.   Grand Prix in   the   Mario Kart and Nintendo world means four races. There isn’t a championship   game at the end like the definition implies. Time Trials is just what it sounds like, competing in a timed race. You tend to compete   against   yourself   or   against a computer.   VS   Race   can be used with multiplayer or can be played by one person with other computers playing as well. Finally, Battle is one of my favorites. Battle is not a typical race like Grand Prix.   During   Battle, you have five   modes:   Balloon Battle, Bomb-omb   Blast, Renegade Roundup, Shine Thief, and Coin Runners.   All the modes are different but have the same core idea, to win.    

All the characters on   Mario Kart 8   are   characters from   previous Nintendo games   on   all   their platforms.   They all have a   storyline,   but they aren’t   referenced   in   Mario Kart   8.   Not knowing every character’s   story line is not a crucial part to the game.   Newer players to the Nintendo realm might not know all the characters and that’s okay but the storylines for the characters aren’t   important   for Mario Kart.   Most of the characters within the Nintendo world have their own game   which   explains their story   or the purpose of the game.   For someone who’s interested in learning the storyline for a specific character, they should   look into   playing one of the games that’s based around that character.   For example,   in   Super Mario Bros   the purpose of the game is to free Princess Peach   from the “enemy” Bowser.   Once you complete the game, Mario saves Princess Peach and Bowser   leaves.   

Every   character   has   unique characteristics to them.   For instance, Princess Peach only wears pink clothes and   many of   her things in Mario Kart 8 are pink. Another example is   Shy Guy. Shy Guy, also known as   ShyGuys,   is a common enemy for Mario and Luigi. They are found wearing masks, ultimately because they’re shy.   Shy Guy   has multiple versions due to being in so many Nintendo games. Each variation of Shy Guy has different tricks   and different colors. The original Shy Guy is red and has the basic   tricks but   going other colors have more “advanced” skills.   Each character also has their own discourse.   Shy Guy   makes very random noises throughout the game and his tone changes based   off   the situation he’s in.   Since Shy Guy wasn’t introduced into Mario games   until   Super Mario Bros. 2   came out in 1988, many have followed him since the first time he   appeared in another game.   Players have favorite characters based   off of   previous games or even rounds. My roommates and I   all like different characters for different reasons. For instance, I love   Tanooki   Mario, while one of my roommates loves Blue Shy   Guy. Our favorites   are based on previous games played, although we mainly play   Mario Kart 8 ,   not storylines.   

To further explain my   appreciation   for   Mario   Kart 8 , my roommates and I made a podcast.   The   podcast is linked   here:   https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-uikhk- d2a8e6?utm_campaign=i_share_ep&utm_medium=dlink&utm_source=i_share .   During the podcast, we discussed how we play, our   preferences   on characters,   and the   discourse   we use throughout the game.   The podcast helped organize my paper and help me get my argument across.   Presenting my multimodal helped me gauge how everyone in the class felt about my topic. I was able to ask the class some questions which helped me add   to my argument.    

To   conclude,   Mario Kart 8   and Nintendo has had   a tremendous impact   on my life. I   have never had to sit down and read the instructions on how to play any Nintendo game.   Every Nintendo   game has a tutorial of how to play   when you first start playing. For example, in   Super Mario Party   there is a tutorial on how to play the minigame before it   officially begins.   Another example is in the beginning of any Super Mario game, it shows you the storyline, the objectives and   how to play.   The discourse in Nintendo games vary in every game.   For instance, the discourse in   Animal Crossing   is different than in   Luigi’s Mansion.   The “slang” is completely   different   and they both occur in opposite settings.   Nintendo games are played across the world and the literacies that happen during different games can be used anywhere. While   recording my podcast, I did ask my roommates if they tend to   look into   other games made by Nintendo.   They both said they   investigate   other Nintendo games that have the similar gameplay.   While all Nintendo games aren’t the same, they all have the same goal, for their players to have   fun.     

Understanding Literacy in Our Lives by Sarah Ciha is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Main navigation

• Undergraduate
• Equity and Climate
• Associate Members
• Affiliate Members
• Adjunct Members
• Emeritus Faculty
• Visiting Scholars
• Post-doctoral Fellows
• Course Lecturers
• In Memoriam

Mario Bunge

PhD in physico-mathematical sciences, Universidad Nacional de La Plata (1952) Sixteen honorary doctorates Four honorary professorships

Teaching and research areas

Theoretical physics Ontology Epistemology Philosophy of science Philosophy of technology Philosophy of mind Value theory and ethics

Current research

Philosophy of the social sciences, philosophy of mind, and metaphysics

Main studies on Mario Bunge's work

Joseph Agassi and Robert S. Cohen, Eds.,  Scientific Philosophy Today: Essays in Honor of Mario Bunge  ( Reidel, 1982)

Raul Serroni-Copello,  Encuentros con Mario Bunge  (Asociación de Investigaciones en Psicologia, 1989).

Paul Weingartner and Georg Dorn, Eds.,  Studies on Bunge's Treatise  (Rodopi, 1990).

Laurent-Michel Vacher,  Entretiens avec Mario Bunge  (Liber, 1993).

Systems and Mechanisms: A Symposium on Mario Bunge's Philosophy of Social Science, Philosophy of the Social Science,  vol. 34, Nos. 2 and 3, 2004.

Publications

Selected publications.

• Medical Philosophy  (Singapore: World Scientific Publications, 2013)
• Filosofía para médicos . Barcelona, Buenos Aires: Gedisa, 2013.
• Filosofía de la técnica . Lima: Universidad Garcilaso de la Vega, 2012.
• Evaluating Philosophies . Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 295. Dordrecht,  Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer, 2012.
• Tratado de filosofía , tomo 4:  Un mundo de sistemas . Spanish translation of #48. Barcelona: Gedisa, 2012.
• Provocaciones.  Buenos Aires: EDHASA, 2011.
• Tratado de filosofía , tomo 3:  El moblaje del mundo . Spanish translation of #46. Barcelona: Gedisa, 2011.
•   Las pseudociencias ¡vaya timo!  Pamplona (Spain): Laetoli, 2010.
• Caçando a realidade.  Portuguese translation of #122. Sao Paulo: Perspectiva, 2010.
• Matter and Mind . Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 287. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer, 2010.
• Political Philosophy  (Transaction Publishers, 2009).
• Chasing Reality: Strife over Realism  (University of Toronto Press, 2006).
• 100 ideas  (Buenos Aires: Sudamericana, 2006).
• Una filosofía realista para el nuevo siglo.  Lima: Universidad Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, 2007.
• Deu assaigs filososòfics i una diatriba exasperada.  Girona: Documenta Universitaria, 2007.
• Filosofía y sociedad.  México, D.F.: Siglo xxi, 2008.
• Tratado de filosofía, tomo 1: Semántica I.  Spanish translation of # 37.Barcelona: Gedisa, 2008.
• Foundations of Biophilosophy , with Martin Mahner. Japanese translation of # 91. Tokyo: Springer, 2008.
• Le matérialisme scientifique . Paris: Syllepse, 2008.
• Political Philosophy: Fact, Fiction, and Vision.  New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2008.
• Causality in Modern Science, 4th ed.  New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2008.
• Causality: The Place of the Causal Principle in Modern Science  ( Harvard University Press, 1959). Reissued as  Causality in Modern Science  (Dover ,1979). Translated into German, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Russian, and Spanish.
• Metascientific Queries  (Charles C. Thomas,1959).
• Intuition and Science  (Prentice-Hall, 1962. Greenwood Press, 1975).
• Translated into Russian and Spanish.
• The Myth of Simplicity.  (Prentice-Hall, 1963).
• Scientific Research , 2 volumes  (Springer, 1967). Reissued as  Philosophy of Science  (Transaction Publishers, 1998). Translated into Spanish.
• Foundations of Physics  (Springer, 1967).
• Philosophy of Physics.  (Reidel, 1973). Translated into French, Italian, Portuguese, Rusian, and Spanish.
• Method, Model and Matter  ( Reidel, 1973).
• The Mind-Body Problem  (Pergamon, 1980). Translated into German and Spanish.
• Epistemologia  (Ariel, 1980). Translated into German, Portuguese and Spanish.
• Ciencia y desarrollo  (Siglo Veinte, 1980). Translated into Portuguese.
• Scientific Materialism  (Reidel,1981). Translated into Spanish.
• Philosophical Problems in Linguistics.  In Japanese. Tokyo: Seishin-Shobo, 1986.
• Philosophy of Psychology , with Ruben Ardila (Springer, 1987). Translated into German and Spanish.
• Treatise on Basic Philosophy , 8 volumes on semantics, ontology, epistemology, philosophy of science and technology, and axiology and ethics (Reidel, 1984-89).
• La science, sa methode et sa philosophie.  (Internet, 1996).
• Finding Philosophy in Social Science  (Yale University Press, 1996).
• Intuition et raison  (Internet, 1996).
• Foundations of Biophilosophy , with Martin Mahner (Springer, 1997).
• Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory, Vol. 1  (Transaction Publishers, 1998).
• Philosophy of Science: From Explanation to Justification, Vol. 2  (Transaction Publishers, 1998).
• Social Science Under Debate  (University of Toronto Press, 1998).
• Critical Approaches to Science and Philosophy  (Transaction Publishers, 1998).
• Dictionary of Philosophy  (Prometheus Books, 1998).
• The Sociology -Philosophy Connection  (Transaction Publishers, 1999).
• Philosophische Grundlagen der Biologie.  Translation of #91 plus preface by Gerhard Vollmer. Preface by Gerhard Vollmer. (Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer-Verlag, 2000.).
• Fundamentos de la biofilosofia.  Translation of #91. (Mexico-Buenos Aires: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 2000).
• Philosophy in Crisis: The Need for Reconstruction.  (Amherst NY: Prometheus Books, 2001).
• Diccionario de filosofia.  Spanish transl. of # 104.(Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores, 2001).
• Scientific Realism: Selected Essays by Mario Bunge.  Ed. Martin Mahner.(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2001).
• Ser, saber, hacer.  (Mexico City: Paidos-Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 2002).
• Filosofia de la psicologia,  with Ruben Ardila, 2nd ed. (Mexico Buenos Aires: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 2002).
• El problema mente - cerebro.  Reprint (Madrid: Tecnos, 2002).
• Crisis y reconstrucción de la filosofía Barcelona and Buenos Aires :Gedisa, 2002.
• Filosofía de la psicología , with R. Ardila, 2d ed. MÈxico, D.F.: Siglo XXI, 2002.
• Philosophical Dictionary, 2d enlarged ed . Amherst NY: Prometheus Books, 2003. Spanish and Portugese translations.
• Emergence and Convergence  (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,2003).
• Mitos, hechos y razones  (Buenos Aires: Sudamericana, 2004).
• Ueber die Nature der Dinge,  with Martin Mahner (Stuttgart: Hirzel, 2004).
• "Max Weber did not practice the philosophy he preached." In L. McFalls, ed.,  Max Weber’s “Objectivity” Revisited , pp. 119-134. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007.
• "The philoosophy behind pseudoscience",  Skeptical Inquirer  30 (4) 29-27 (2006).
• "A systemic perspective on crime", in P.-O. Wikstrom and R. Sampson, eds. ,  The Explanation of Crime  (Cambridge: Cambridge university Press, 2006).
• Velocity operators and time-energy relations in relativistic quantum mechanics.  International Journal of Theoretical Physics  42: 135-142, 2003.
• Philosophy of science and technology: A personal report. In Guttorm Fløistad, ed.,  Philosophy of Latin America,  pp. 235-272. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2003.
• Twenty-five centuries of quantum physics: From Pythagoras to us, and from subjectivism to realism.  Science & Education  12: 445-466, 2003. Preceded by Michael R. Matthews' "Mario Bunge: Physicist and philosopher", pp. 431-444. Followed by 6 papers, commenting on the target article, by Massimo Pauri, John Forge, Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, Alberto Cordero, Adrian Heathcote, and Marcello Cini.
• Quantons are quaint but basic and real: Reply to my critics.  Science & Education  12: 587-597, 2003.
• How to handle the goose that lays golden eggs.  Graduate Researcher  1:41-42. 2003.
• Los médicos ignoran la filosofía a a su riesgo y al nuestro Desideratum(Lima)3, No. 3, 66-76, 2003.
• Interpretation and hypothesis in social studies. In R. Boudon, M. Cherkaouki & P. Demeulenaere, eds.,  The European Tradition in Qualitative Research,  Vol. IV, pp. 20-40. London: Sage Publications, 2003.
• Vinte e cinco séculos de física quántica.  Gazeta de Física (Sociedade Portuguea de Física), v. 25, No. 3, 4-12, 2002.
• Introduction to Robert K. Merton,  Teoría y estructura sociales , pp.1-8. México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2002.
• 486. Teófilo Isnardi, el primer filósofo de la física argentino.  Revista de enseñanza de la física  15, No. 1: 23-24, 2002.
• Las pseudociencias ¡vaya timo!  Pamplona (Spain): Laetoli, 2010.
• Evaluating Philosophies . Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 295. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer, 2012.
•   Filosofía de la técnica . Lima: Universidad Garcilaso de la Vega, 2012.

Department and University Information

Department of philosophy.

Scientific Philosophy Today

Essays in Honor of Mario Bunge

• © 1982
• Joseph Agassi 0 ,
• Robert S. Cohen 1

Boston University, USA Tel Aviv University, Israel

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

Boston University, USA

Part of the book series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science (BSPS, volume 67)

5042 Accesses

34 Citations

5 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

Table of contents (26 chapters)

Front matter, some remarks on ontology.

• Leo Apostel

A Kind of Collapse in a Simple Spacetime Model

• Máximo García-Sucre

Poetic Imagination and Economy: Ernst Mach as Theorist of Science

• Rudolf Haller

Some Thoughts on the Ideal of Exactness in Science and Philosophy

• Peter P. Kirschenmann

On Hypotheses and Hypotheticism

• Władysław Krajewski

The Influence of Heraclitus on Modern Mathematics

Free intuitionistic logic: a formal sketch.

• Hugues Leblanc

Some Lessons in the Sun

• Fernand Lemay

Interpretative Action Constructs

Is realistic history of science possible.

• Lynn M. Lindholm

Physics and the Doctrine of Reductionism

• Henry Margenau

Symbolism and Chance

• John Maynard Smith

A Study in Protophysics

• Carlos-Ulises Moulines

Materialist Foundations of Critical Rationalism

• Miguel A. Quintanilla

Analytic Philosophy as the Confrontation Between Wittgensteinians and Popper

• Gerard Radnitzky

Distrust of Reason

• Friedrich Rapp

Teleology Redux

• Michael Ruse

Invariance and Covariance

• Erhard Scheibe

Molecular Phylogenetics: Biological Parsimony and Methodological Extravagance

• Abel Schejter, Joseph Agassi
• Karl R. Popper
• history of science
• philosophy of science

About this book

Editors and affiliations.

Joseph Agassi, Robert S. Cohen

Tel Aviv University, Israel

Joseph Agassi

Bibliographic Information

Book Title : Scientific Philosophy Today

Book Subtitle : Essays in Honor of Mario Bunge

Editors : Joseph Agassi, Robert S. Cohen

Series Title : Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8462-2

Publisher : Springer Dordrecht

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

Copyright Information : D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1982

Hardcover ISBN : 978-90-277-1262-2 Published: 31 December 1981

Softcover ISBN : 978-90-277-1263-9 Published: 31 December 1981

eBook ISBN : 978-94-009-8462-2 Published: 29 June 2013

Series ISSN : 0068-0346

Series E-ISSN : 2214-7942

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : X, 518

Topics : Philosophy of Science

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research