4 ms·

I wouldn't say he's saying the opposite, but adding that we also work/live to be able to play.

• strogonoff 6y ago
  How can the idea of “live to be able to play” be reconciled with the substance of the article?
  • cko 6y ago
    I 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 ago
      Yes, 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).