I just read a great paper written by the philosopher Gavin Ardley and published in 1967: The Role of Play in the Philosophy of Plato. (Sorry, it’s behind a paywall.)
In the paper he discusses how important play—as a sister to seriousness—is for several philosophers, including Aristotle, Berkley, Wittgenstein, and most importantly, Plato. (Oddly, he leaves out Nietzsche, who I would contend is the Philosopher of Play, but I will leave this claim to be discussed in a future blog post!)
He also makes a valid case that for both Plato and Aristotle, for one avoid becoming a boor (someone always serious) or a fool (someone lacking all seriousness) a right, middle approach to play must be found—boorishness today today being a particular problem.
He also has an excellent description of the optimal relationship between games and play:
A game at its best is something played for love, for its own sake. A game is disinterested, an end in itself. As with love, there can be no compulsion or necessity in play: its essence is spontaneity and outgivingness.
Gavin Ardley
In fact, I believe the intent of Ardley’s paper is to suggest this is how Plato approached philosophy—as a game—albeit a serious one.
But whether or not this is true for Plato, it does articulate how I feel about philosophy ( as opposed to medicine, or physics, or engineering—disciplines I have been trained in): a serious game whose pursuit is an end in itself.
So, for those of you interested in a theory of games, a theory of play, or the philosophical uses of either, this paper is well worth serious—yet playful—attention.