Exploring the depths of play: re-calibrating metaphysical descriptions and re-conceptualizing sources of value

Abstract

This paper has two main parts to it. First, it is an attempt to clarify certain metaphysical issues regarding play. Play scholars from any number of academic disciplines have created a vast body of literature on the topic that seems overwhelming. Therefore, I offer descriptions of four characteristics of play that seem most experientially prominent and most indicative of the many play descriptors that previous authors have used. Second, I make axiological claims that follow from the metaphysical descriptions. I argue against many previous authors, as I assert that play is not different in kind from our normal workaday lives but instead is only different by degree. Play is a deeper engagement with the world than that which we normally experience.

Este artículo contiene dos partes principales. Primero, es un intento de aclarar ciertas cuestiones metafísicas relacionadas con el juego. Los estudiosos del juego, desde cualquier disciplina académica, han dado lugar a una gran literatura sobre el tema que parece inabarcable. Por lo tanto, ofrezco una descripción de cuatro características del juego que parecen ser las más extendidas experimentalmente y las más indicativas de los elementos definitorios del juego que han usado autores anteriores. Segundo, establezco afirmaciones axiológicas que se siguen de estas descripciones metafísicas. Argumento en contra de muchos autores anteriores a la vez que afirmo que el juego no es de un tipo diferente a nuestras vidas diarias, sino que es sólo diferente por grado. El juego establece un mayor compromiso con el mundo que el que experimentamos habitualmente.

Dieses Papier besteht aus zwei Teilen. Zunächst wird versucht metaphysische Gehalte des Spielbegriffs zu klären. Die Literatur, die mittlerweile aus einer Vielzahl unterschiedlicher Disziplinen dazu vorliegt, scheint nahezu überwältigend. Darum erarbeite ich vier Charakteristika des Spiels, die sich in den prominenten empirischen Beschreibungen vieler Autoren wiederfinden lassen. Im zweiten Teil werden axiologische Schlussfolgerungen aus den metaphysischen Bedeutungszuschreibungen des Spielbegriffs gezogen. Damit argumentiere ich gegen frühere Autoren, weil ich behaupte, dass sich das Spiel nur graduell vom alltäglichen Leben unterscheidet. Im Spiel findet vielmehr eine tiefere Auseinandersetzung mit der Welt statt, als wir im Allgemeinen glauben.

Cet article est constitué de deux parties principales. D’abord, c’est une tentative de clarifier certaines questions métaphysiques quant au jeu. Les jeux scolaires à partir de nombre de disciplines académiques ont créé une litterature énorme sur le sujet qui semble écrasante. Aussi j’offre les descriptions de quatre caratéristiques de jeu qui semblent expérientiellement préminentes et les plus indicatives pour de nombreux descripteurs du jeu utilisés par les auteurs précédents. Deuxièmement je prends une posture axiologique pour les descriptions métaphysiques. J’argumente contre beaucoup d’auteurs précédents en affirmant que le jeu n’est pas different de ce que nous vivons normalement tous les jours mais seulement différent par degré. Le jeu est un engagement plus profond avec le monde que celui que nous éprouvons normalement.

本文有兩個主要部份。首先, 本文試圖去澄清一些特定的有關遊戲本體論的課題。來自各種不同領域的遊戲學者已建立起有關此一課題的寬廣文獻。因此, 我提供對遊戲的四種特質描述, 因為這四種特質似乎是先前許多作者會引述的, 且最著名及最突顯的特性。其次, 我用價值論的主張來延續本體論的描述之後。我反對許多先前作者的看法, 因為我主張遊戲與我們正常的工作生活並無區別, 而只是程度上的區別罷了。比起我們通常所經驗的生活來說, 遊戲更是一種與世界互動較深層的投入

KEYWORDS:

• play
• metaphysics
• value
• meaning

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions that have improved this paper.

Notes

1. This is not to say that Gadamer’s conception of play cannot be compatible with sports and games. It is just that sport philosophers have not analysed his arguments regarding play at much length. This may be for any number of reasons. Gadamerian philosopher Vilhauer, in fact, has identified this as an oversight, arguing that sports and games may be among the best ways to actualize Gadamer’s theories of play to better facilitate understanding (2010, 144–148).This is not to say that Gadamer’s conception of play cannot be compatible with sports and games. It is just that sport philosophers have not analysed his arguments regarding play at much length. This may be for any number of reasons. Gadamerian philosopher Vilhauer, in fact, has identified this as an oversight, arguing that sports and games may be among the best ways to actualize Gadamer’s theories of play to better facilitate understanding (2010, 144–148).

2. In many cases, the context determines whether a stimulus is a play-attractor, play-inhibitor or play-destroyer. The examples I give may be among the more popular stimuli within the categories to which I attach them. I do so not to argue that all stimuli naturally (and without context) are always of one type or another. Instead, I think the examples I give can be understood as popular play-attractors, play-inhibitors and play-destroyers, respectively.In many cases, the context determines whether a stimulus is a play-attractor, play-inhibitor or play-destroyer. The examples I give may be among the more popular stimuli within the categories to which I attach them. I do so not to argue that all stimuli naturally (and without context) are always of one type or another. Instead, I think the examples I give can be understood as popular play-attractors, play-inhibitors and play-destroyers, respectively.

3. Play is intermittent in children too. Indeed, it is much more frequent and longer lasting in children than adults, but it is still temporary. Children, like adults, have to tend to necessity just like everyone else.Play is intermittent in children too. Indeed, it is much more frequent and longer lasting in children than adults, but it is still temporary. Children, like adults, have to tend to necessity just like everyone else.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Chad Carlson

Chad Carlson, Eastern Illinois University, Kinesiology and Sports Studies, 600 Lincoln Ave, Charleston, SC 61920, USA. E-mail: [email protected]