huizinga compared culture to "the game" he argued that a game is only fun as long as everyone folows the rules of the game and the game is essentially fair, if someone doesn't play fair there must either be an authority that enforces these rules or eventually the game ends and people just go and do something else but you can not actually stop playing at life, you can not really walk away from the culture you live in, and thus you need to surrender some of your freedoms to an overarching though importantly a "fair" authority that enforces the rules of that culture which in themselves must be logical and fair. if they are not you get the same problem as when people don't play fair at all in so doing he also explained the differences between a high and a low culture and showed that this is not bound to technology, but he also argued for the importance of "shame" for a succesfull society, people must feel shame and be shamed for breaking rules that are in the benefit for all a good example is the 7 sins ad virtues of christianity, if you analyse these you wil quickly find that these are all logical and are also limitations of necesary actions, lust is bad cause it leads to infidelity and degeneracy but at the same time the need to reproduce is essential for human survival, gluttony is excess eating, greed is excess of the need to provide for yourself, essentially excess desire, envy is wanting to take what your fellow person has out of greed, in appropriate levels wanting to be as succesfull as your fellow person or more so can be healthy in short these are well established and delineated moral and legal principles that make your culture high functioning by limiting the excess freedoms (of the few) to ensure a higher level of real freedom to all others, the authority should not go beyond that, it should not impede on basic freedoms for the sake of increasing it's own power or to benefit one group over the others or even to equalise society because that to makes the game unbearable, (imagine winning at a game and the referee has you put on shackles to ensure the other guy(s) can win, then doing the same to all others until everyone is just orderly passing a ball around in a circle, no inovation, no creativity, just barebones existence)
nu stiu tema, facultatea sau profesoara, dar legat de "Homo Ludens" e ft interesant de vazut si asta th-cam.com/video/oMaqjcC3wiE/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=AthleticInterest
Dude doesnt even know who Huizinga was, lol. It's allready such a stupid way of looking at the world, so childish. But then he says Huizinga was from Germany..? These socalled professors have started to profess the dumbest drivel nowadays. He hasn't even really looked at the author.. And he also completely misunderstood Huizinga's explanation. Simpletons galore.
The term was used in the sixties for social action, the so called ludieke aktie, by Provo and the Kabouters. Their actions ultimately changed the Dutch infrastructure. Now the whole world comes to the Netherlands to study this infrastructure. So it seems childish, but that’s the best way to change people’s view.
Homo Ludens was written in Dutch, not German, if I stand correctly.
That's correct
yet Huizinga did his own translation into English
That is very insightful and concience! Thank you so much!
Rainer is a national treasure, thank you.
Don't wanna reduce this here to one definite meaning, but I think it has something to do with play.
huizinga compared culture to "the game" he argued that a game is only fun as long as everyone folows the rules of the game and the game is essentially fair, if someone doesn't play fair there must either be an authority that enforces these rules or eventually the game ends and people just go and do something else
but you can not actually stop playing at life, you can not really walk away from the culture you live in, and thus you need to surrender some of your freedoms to an overarching though importantly a "fair" authority that enforces the rules of that culture which in themselves must be logical and fair. if they are not you get the same problem as when people don't play fair at all
in so doing he also explained the differences between a high and a low culture and showed that this is not bound to technology,
but he also argued for the importance of "shame" for a succesfull society, people must feel shame and be shamed for breaking rules that are in the benefit for all
a good example is the 7 sins ad virtues of christianity, if you analyse these you wil quickly find that these are all logical and are also limitations of necesary actions, lust is bad cause it leads to infidelity and degeneracy but at the same time the need to reproduce is essential for human survival, gluttony is excess eating, greed is excess of the need to provide for yourself, essentially excess desire, envy is wanting to take what your fellow person has out of greed, in appropriate levels wanting to be as succesfull as your fellow person or more so can be healthy
in short these are well established and delineated moral and legal principles that make your culture high functioning by limiting the excess freedoms (of the few) to ensure a higher level of real freedom to all others, the authority should not go beyond that, it should not impede on basic freedoms for the sake of increasing it's own power or to benefit one group over the others or even to equalise society because that to makes the game unbearable, (imagine winning at a game and the referee has you put on shackles to ensure the other guy(s) can win, then doing the same to all others until everyone is just orderly passing a ball around in a circle, no inovation, no creativity, just barebones existence)
This is a profound talk!
Multumim doamna Stefania Constantin pentru tema :)
nu stiu tema, facultatea sau profesoara, dar legat de "Homo Ludens" e ft interesant de vazut si asta th-cam.com/video/oMaqjcC3wiE/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=AthleticInterest
Thank you for this.
This is so unnecessarily convoluted. Like he's the only ones who truly understands what he's saying.
very good
From Huizinga to Nguyen in philosophy. Play has gotten so far.
Gry is game in Polish
Dude doesnt even know who Huizinga was, lol. It's allready such a stupid way of looking at the world, so childish. But then he says Huizinga was from Germany..? These socalled professors have started to profess the dumbest drivel nowadays. He hasn't even really looked at the author.. And he also completely misunderstood Huizinga's explanation. Simpletons galore.
The term was used in the sixties for social action, the so called ludieke aktie, by Provo and the Kabouters. Their actions ultimately changed the Dutch infrastructure. Now the whole world comes to the Netherlands to study this infrastructure. So it seems childish, but that’s the best way to change people’s view.
What is blud yappin about