4 ms·
I think you're in agreement? To clarify, I understood the commenters placing "play" last was because it was at the top, and the root rationale. making money ->
by patcon 6y ago
I think you're in agreement? To clarify, I understood the commenters placing "play" last was because it was at the top, and the root rationale.
making money -> eating -> energy -> play
- strogonoff 6y agomensetmanusman: “survive to play”. The end purpose is play. Survival is the means of getting there. TFA: “play to survive”. The end purpose is whatever survival entails (probably reproduction, or more generally passing on one’s genes). Play is the means of getting there.
- cko 6y agoI wouldn't say he's saying the opposite, but adding that we also work/live to be able to play.
- strogonoff 6y agoHow can the idea of “live to be able to play” be reconciled with the substance of the article?
- cko 6y agoI saw the comment as a tangential observation on play. But there was a section in the article where it suggests that in nature, play is "expensive" - in that it costs precious energy (and some animals may actually put themselves in actual risk in the process). So costing energy could be seen as what we view as labor. Working to be able to play, so to speak.
- strogonoff 6y agoYes, but the article argued exactly that it pays off, i.e. has utility for survival so high it exceeds the cost. If it was not useful for survival, play (as defined in the article) could be thought of as the pinnacle of existence, useless on its own with everything else building up to it; but it is not that, it is argued to be merely a means. With comment presenting the opposite viewpoint to TFA, either I was missing its point, or it reacted purely to the keyword “play” in the title and not the substance, or it was begging for someone to reply and ask for elaboration (which I did).