![]() ![]() In a recontextualization of that story, the Grasshopper doesn't play all the time because he's lazy or doesn't know the value of food or the danger of winter, it's because he has a total commitment to a certain philosophy of life that demands play and not work. The main character of the book is The Grasshopper, the same one from the Aesop's Fables story with the ant. While I feel that Suits' definition ultimately comes up short I feel it's a well-written book that does bring forward some interesting and useful ideas. ![]() Furthermore, it's common in fields from art to physics to probe definitions to seek better understanding, and this sort of investigation can lead to new and exciting innovations in those fields. Some commentators suggest that all efforts to define “games” are a gate-keeping effort to exclude unwanted voices, but I don't detect any malice or social maneuvering in Suits' book. However, a lot of things look impossible until someone does it, and Suits makes a credible effort to do so. This is not a minor undertaking, Wittgenstein suggested that defining games was impossible, that a “family resemblance” to other games is the best you can do. ![]() The Grasshopper is philosopher Bernard Suits' effort to define the concept of “game” and explore how an understanding of games can inform the kind of lives we'd like to live. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |