Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Players must accept the constitutive rules of a game for any game to be possible.
?
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-compliance is constituted by behavioral dispositions, not prior acts of acceptance or propositional attitudes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Suits conflates causal-dispositional conformity to rules with the normative acceptance of rules as a distinct mental act.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A game can be fully instantiated by players whose behavior systematically conforms to constitutive rules without any moment of explicit acceptance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Young children and non-human animals engage in rule-governed play without consciously accepting or representing those rules as binding.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If play can occur without explicit acceptance of constitutive rules, acceptance cannot be a necessary condition for game possibility.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
In the absence of players accepting the constitutive rules, no game can take place.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The lusory attitude just is this acceptance of constitutive rules as necessary for play.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42