Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A person can act in accordance with the rules of a game without actually playing the game.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that rule-conforming behavior is constitutively inseparable from the practice that gives the rules meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If rules only gain determinate content through participation in the form of life of the game, then acting 'in accordance with' the rules without playing is incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The logical grammar of game-rules is internal to the game-practice, so there is no external standpoint from which one merely conforms to them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bratman's planning theory of intention holds that an agent's motivational structure does not negate the intentional content of their actions when those actions are objectively game-directed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If an athlete executes constitutive game actions—scoring, defending, competing—the causal and intentional structure of those actions instantiates game-playing regardless of background motivation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Separating lusory attitude from game-playing conflates the reasons for which one plays with the activity itself, a distinction Bratman's framework shows undermines Suits's internalist criterion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Playing a game requires the lusory attitude, not merely rule-conforming behavior.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The lusory attitude requires that players respect the rules because they wish to play and endorse the view that breaking the rules ends the game.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Motivation to follow rules for reasons other than playing the game (e.g., reputation, awards) is insufficient to constitute the lusory attitude.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.