bookmate game
en
Johan Huizinga

Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture

Kitap eklendiğinde bana bildir
Bu kitabı okumak için Bookmate’e EPUB ya da FB2 dosyası yükleyin. Bir kitabı nasıl yüklerim?
In Homo Ludens, the classic evaluation of play that has become a “must-read” for those in game design, Dutch philosopher Johan Huizinga defines play as the central activity in flourishing societies. Like civilization, play requires structure and participants willing to create within limits. Starting with Plato, Huizinga traces the contribution of Homo Ludens, or “Man the player” through Medieval Times, the Renaissance, and into our modern civilization. Huizinga defines play against a rich theoretical background, using cross-cultural examples from the humanities, business, and politics. Homo Ludens defines play for generations to come. «A happier age than ours once made bold to call our species by the name of Homo Sapiens. In the course of time we have come to realize that we are not so reasonable after all as the Eighteenth Century with its worship of reason and naive optimism, though us; «hence moder fashion inclines to designate our species asHomo Faber: Man the Maker. But though faber may not be quite so dubious as sapiens it is, as a name specific of the human being, even less appropriate, seeing that many animals too are makers. There is a third function, howver, applicable to both human and animal life, and just as important as reasoning and making—namely, playing. it seems to me that next to Homo Faber, and perhaps on the same level as Homo Sapiens, Homo Ludens, Man the Player, deserves a place in our nomenclature. "—from the Foreward, by Johan Huizinga
Bu kitap şu anda mevcut değil
459 yazdırılmış sayfalar
Bunu zaten okudunuz mu? Bunun hakkında ne düşünüyorsunuz?
👍👎

Alıntılar

  • apingalıntı yaptı2 yıl önce
    The ritual act, or an important part of it, will always remain within the play category, but in this seeming subordination the recognition of its holiness is not lost.
  • apingalıntı yaptı2 yıl önce
    We express the relationship between him and the animal he “identifies” himself with, as a “being” for him but a “playing” for us. He has taken on the “essence” of the kangaroo, says the savage; he is playing the kangaroo, say we. The savage, however, knows nothing of the conceptual distinctions between “being” and “playing”; he knows nothing of “identity”, “image” or “symbol”. Hence it remains an open question whether we do not come nearest to the mental attitude of the savage performing a ritual act, by adhering to this primary, universally understandable term “play”.
  • apingalıntı yaptı2 yıl önce
    All we can study is a ritualistic community which receives its religious imagery as traditional material just as “ready-made” as the child does, and responds to it similarly. Secondly, even if we ignore this, the process of “interpreting” the natural surroundings, of “grasping” them and “representing” them in a ritual image remains altogether inaccessible to our observation. It is only by fanciful metaphors that Frobenius and Jensen force an approach to it. The most we can say of the function that is operative in the process of image-making or imagination is that it is a poetic function; and we define it best of all by calling it a function of play—the ludic function, in fact.
fb2epub
Dosyalarınızı sürükleyin ve bırakın (bir kerede en fazla 5 tane)