« listen to the on the fly announcing of gameplay | Main | nice discussion of philosophically interesting new games from E3 »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

He takes direct aim at Wittgenstein for denying that such a task is possible.

Wittgenstein makes no such denial. See my post "Wittgenwanker".

Hmm. My HTML code didn't work. Here's the link to that post: http://methodsofprojection.blogspot.com/2009/03/wittgenwanker.html

I read the post. I don't get it. You argue that Wittgenstein did not believe that the concept "game" cannot be "analyzed" and accuse Hurka of being confused about this because he (erroneously, in your books) equates analysis with the provision of necessary and sufficient conditions. I hold no brief in the (surely pointless) debate about what 'analysis' is, but definitions certainly do aim to provide necessary and sufficient conditions. So as far as I can tell, you end up agreeing with me, at least by implication.

What do you suppose the distinction is between analysis and definition?

There are two things to get: (1) Suits (as presented by Hurka; perhaps Hurka misrepresents Suits) does not provide necessary and sufficient conditions for being what we call a "game." This is patent. No one would normally call reading a novel or taking a school exam "playing a game," but for Hurka (following suits) these are paradigmatic examples of games. If these are games, then many many activities that are not normally called games by anyone, will be games according to Suits's definition. (2) Wittgenstein does not deny that 'game' can be defined. Rather, he denies that it resists one sort of definition, viz., definition in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. Furthermore, Wittgenstein would have no objection to Suits's project, so long as it is recognized what is going on. Suits is defining a kind of activity that has certain similarities and differences to playing a game. We can call the activity Suits picks out "playing a game," but in doing so we have not uncovered the previously hidden essence of games; we have created a new boundary and decided (for whatever reason) to call what falls inside it a "game."

One more thing: some definitions provide necessary and sufficient conditions for being (an) x. Others do not. The latter are not defective or less useful. "Definition" is itself a family-resemblance concept.

If you're reading this, and you're a member of icycalm's forums, you're a moron.

You're right, 'X'; your post certainly did transform me into a moron. Maybe if I read some children's literature I can build myself back up....

Can anyone give me a list of the video games in one games cartridge?........

The comments to this entry are closed.