Her tentative, though convincing, solution entertains the hypothesis that the mindful state of being-in-the-zone is the goal of life, with Utopians challenged with the task of devising really magnificent games as the means by which we might be brought into alignment with this ultimate guiding principle. Dr Vossen attempts to do this in her papers. Inasmuch as he offers readers a choice between mass delusion and existential oblivion, a more optimistic solution is required. Unfortunately, Suits leaves the reader with a paradox that he himself neglects to resolve. Yet, beyond his effort to define games, Suits seeks also to account for their significance – via the mandibles of Aesop’s Grasshopper and two former ants – as a central part of the ideal of human existence. Dr Deborah Vossen uses the experience of being-in-the-zone to offer an alternative, allowing for the possibility that Utopians might live meaningful lives.ĭr Vossen’s research is an interpretation of and response to the work of Suits, who is himself responding to Wittgenstein’s famous assertion that games are indefinable. Unfortunately, Suits leaves the reader with a choice between delusion and oblivion. In Utopia, all activity would be voluntary and intrinsically valuable, rather than necessary and instrumentally valuable. These characters debate the definition of “game,” and how game playing might relate to the meaning of life. In The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia, Bernard Suits devises a thought experiment using dialogues between Aesop’s Grasshopper and two former ants.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |