This seems like an exercise in philosophical pseudo-something-or-other. It plays like a conversation: the entire game consists of choosing between two responses to a statement, which itself was a response to your previous choice of responses. It is possible to play in a circle, or argue in circles, I suppose. In that sense, what we have is really a maze, and the object is to follow the correct sequence of responses that will take us to the exit. Or, I suppose, to the centre of the philosophy.
The text is very dense. Unless you're in the habit of reading philosophy, this may be a bit much to swallow. I'm not a philosopher, and I can't tell if the text is being serious or if it's pulling out all the big words to sound bombastic and ridiculous. All I could do was nod and smile and click on a random keyword.
And one thing I noticed, is that each choice is represented by a single clickable keyword. After wandering around a couple of times, I suspect that each keyword is unique, always leading to the same statement-and-response node. One could therefore navigate the maze by following the keywords rather than the statements. I wonder if that's the real point of it all. Given that the game never engaged me, I never really cared to find out.
Breakfast is white rice with a bit of butter and soy sauce in it, and a glass of black tea.