Play, games, and philosophy: A metaphysical and axiological study.

摘要

Much has been written about the nature and value of play and games. Indeed, philosophers and scholars from across the academy have spent considerable time and energy describing these phenomena. While most researchers believe that play and games are different, little consensus exists on whether or not they can be defined and, if so, what exactly they are. Likewise, while most writers agree that play and games have some normative value, there has been much less agreement on precisely what that value is. Therefore, this study constitutes an attempt to re-conceptualize and clarify the nature and value of play and games.;As such, this research is both metaphysical and normative in nature. The metaphysical side of this work attempts to identify central features of games and play. The normative analysis is constructed on those features. Insights for both parts of this research are gleaned primarily from the existing literature as well as reflections on personal play and game experiences.;Chapter One provides a critical summary of play and game analyses from the Classical Period, the Middle Ages and Renaissance, the Enlightenment, 20th Century American Pragmatism, and the Modern Era socio-historians and cultural scientists. From this literature I identify points of possible consensus and disagreement as well as recurring themes that deserve further attention. Chapter Two is an analysis of the contemporary dialogue on play and games. I will argue that while considerable progress has been made on the nature and value of play and games, significant questions still remain. In Chapter Three I address one of those questions. It is related to the conflation of play and games. This chapter includes examples of conflation in scholarly writing, an analysis of play and games as both attitudes and activities, and speculations on three sources or causes of conflation. Chapter Four is a metaphysical and axiological re-conceptualization of play and games. The metaphysical arguments of the first half of this chapter (play as autotelic, fragile, voluntary, and uncertain, and games as challenges or problems, gratuitous, and conventional) lead to the normative claims that follow. Play and games so described, I suggest, provide a deeper engagement with the world than that which is afforded by ordinary or normal existence.