CC BY
2015. Yershova-Babenko I. (2009). The Place of Psychosynergy in Post-classics. Collective monograph // Postneklassika: Philosophy, Science, Culture. St. Petersburg: World, p. 460-488
16. Yershova-Babenko I. (2012) Post-Non-Cassi-cal Methodology - Psycho-synergetic: the Possibilities of Use in Medicine / Yershova-Babenko I.V., Gorishak S.P., Enin R.V. // Integrative Anthropology. №1, pp. 10-24.
17. Yershova-Babenko I. (2015). Psychosynergy. Monograph. - Kherson: Grin, 468 p.
18. Yershova-Babenko I., Kryvtsova N. V. (2019). The Theoretical Foundations Of Psycho-Synergetics As The Psychological Principles - Theoretical And Practical Introduction Of The Competence Approach In High Education Of Ukraine // Theory and Practice of Introduction of Competence Approach to Higher Education in Ukraine: Monograph. - Vienna: Premier Publishing, p. 11 - 21
PHILOSOPHY OF GAME: CONCEPTUAL LIMITS AND PERSPECTIVES OF THE STUDY
Lysokolenko T.
Department of Philosophy of Communal Institution of Higher Education "Dnipro Academy of Continuing Education " (Dnipro, Ukraine)
Abstract
The author generalizes that one of the directions of expanding the methodological limits of game research is the application of a structural approach that enables the formulation of the principles of structuring game as an integrated phenomenon to different fields of social space and allows to structure the social game fields of modern society.
Keywords: game, language, culture, media, structure
Introduction
In the XXI century the issue of what game is does not lose its relevance due to the formation of a new type of sociality in the context of social institutions transformations, social space virtualization and game elements penetration into the plane of various social spheres. Being a category within the limits of philosophical reflection, game continues to be the phenomenon that is in focus as an independent phenomenon, and as a phenomenon either extending the understanding of philosophical ideas, concepts, systems or substantiating the existence of other phenomena. However, generally accepted understanding of game, formed within the classical paradigm of science, no longer satisfies the current realities of the game existence as one of the ontological phenomena. The insertion of a game into the utilitarian boundaries of a certain type of activity or the usage of a category of game with a versatile set of persistent properties and characteristics is seen to be narrowed. Understanding game as an unproductive activity, a kind of physical or intellectual activity that is devoid of purpose and is carried out for fun does not justify itself in modern realities of the society development. It is XX century that became the starting point in the change of the vectors of studying game as a social category. After "Homo ludens" by J. Huizinga and the concept of speech games by L. Wittgenstein, game deprives the status of frivolous phenomenon within purely practical activity, expanding its boundaries to a phenomenon with ambiguous status, and the rapid pace of development of media technologies allow us to state that game undergoes an implosion, which J. Baudrillard drew the attention to. Consequently, within the framework of so-cio-philosophical analysis, it is necessary to take into account the interdisciplinary and integrated nature of game that allowing various phenomena deconstruction
in social space. A modern researcher V. Rosin says: "it is essential that within interdisciplinary social research, with the leading position of the social sciences ... not only the synthesis and configuration of representations from different disciplines take place, but also the disassociation (deconstruction) of social concepts and reality ... old oppositions and typology of sciences cease to function, new ones are formed; cardinally changing the understanding of the social"7.
Therefore, changing the benchmarks in the study of game, the movement of research perspectives should go beyond its direct definition. By conducting an analysis of literature on the game philosophy, it would be possible to offer a huge list of the philosophers who studied game, as it is done in the most modern studies. However, the philosophical theories of game are diverse, their classification mainly depends on the angle at which the analysis of game is conducted. So, putting the philosophy of game as a concept in focus, its research can be combined into two large groups with separate directions. Thus, game as a phenomenon of philosophical comprehension was at the center of research attention as a direct phenomenon of analysis (J. Huizinga, R. Caillois, H. Hesse, J. Ortega y Gasset, F. Schiller, E. Berne, L. Wittgenstein, M. Bakhtin, E. Fink, B. Elkonin, etc.), or indirectly (Plato, Aristotle, Sextus Empiricus, E. Roterdamus, B. Spinoza, B. Pascal, T. More, M. Castells, F. Nietzsche, M. Heidegger, etc.), acting as a tool through which the disclosure of other research lines took place. Of course, the formation of two large groups may raise questions, because each representative of philosophical knowledge builds his own game with its own structure and its own approaches to the study, and, finally, with his own definition of what game is. However, there is no consensus
7 Rosin (2018, 46)
on this issue. The fact is that the attempt of methodological generalization encounters the problem of game slipping away from the definition, from an attempt to outline its established lines and constituent elements. The more a researcher delves into the analysis of game, the more it seems like a performance. That is why the study of game involves methodological difficulties, especially when trying to describe a "pure or absolute game". Given this, one of the possible research lines of game in modern society is the position of the observer, the detached spectator. It is believed that this position will articulate the question of possible options for determining game, game structuring in the modern socio-philosophical space.
In the field of modern researchers, game takes its right place, but it is very difficult to combine these studies into certain groups because game is increasingly becoming an interdisciplinary category of analysis, its research increasingly aimed at convergence with natural and mathematical disciplines. So, in the work "Game theory in philosophy" De Bruin notes: "Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics. It is mathematics applied to human social behavior, to strategic interaction, to the logic of conflict. It is mathematics for economics, for political science, for sociology, and, to some extent, for philosophy"8.
Modern game researches are based on different methodological planes. The authors of "Philosophy of Game Theory" Till Grune-Yanoff and Aki Lehtinen dwell on "Architecture of Game Theory", stating the following:
"The structure of game theory is interesting from the perspective of the philosophy of science. Like many other theories, it employs highly abstract models, and it seeks to explain, predict and advice on real world phenomena by a theory that operates through these abstract models. What is special about game theory, however, is that this theory does not provide a general and unified mode of dealing with all kinds of phenomena, but rather offers a 'toolbox', from which the right tools must be selected.... Game structure ... is a description of a particular game that is constructed using elements of the theory proper"9.
In the research "Philosophy of Games", the author C.T. Nguyen reflects on the changing nature of the game concept in a historical genesis, noting that game has undergone significant transformations several times - before J. Huizinga and after him, as well as with the proliferation of virtual reality. C.T. Nguyen also notes the difference between modern interdisciplinary approaches to game interpretation:
"An even more radical departure from the above approaches can be found in the philosophy of sport. To paint with a broad brush, literary theorists and philosophers of art typically focus on games as designed artifacts, while the philosophy of sport investigates game-playing as an activity"10.
So, we see that in the English-speaking social space, attention to game is focused on its interpretation
as a polydisciplinary phenomenon, on the questions of its structuring and transformational changes.
Conducting game generalization, based on the activity approach, M. Koskov in the "Game: The Experience of the Philosophical Theory" comes to the following conclusion:
"Summing up, we can conclude that there are two large classes of games. The first one includes games of mastering, accepting reality, culture, rules of everyday life (albeit in conditional imitative form). The second includes games of deviation, distancing from everyday reality by artificial rules, tightening, turning over the norms of ordinary life, aimed at breaking away from these norms. Thus, all possible games basically belong only to two oppositely directed foundation classes"11.
Without denying this approach, it should be noted that it only partly responds the principle of game structuring, eliminating the opportunity to take an intermediate position between the two identified groups of classes.
Conducting a generalization of game philosophy of, L. Retiunskikh distinguishes such levels of being of game as: empirical, existential, and communicative. The starting point for L. Retiunskikh research is the following:
"Game is an original and unique ontological phenomenon, it has an autonomy and is significant in the human world precisely in its qualitative integrity, and does not represent any other phenomena"12.
Undoubtedly, the originality and uniqueness of game is an important aspect of the research, but it is unclear why the representation of other phenomena through game remains undervalued. Obviously, the study of gaming elements as a part of other social phenomena is not an easy way, which is related to the complexity of naming game, and perhaps with the inability to clearly distinguish game and its absence. However, the integration of game, gaming elements into other socio-cultural phenomena enriches or modifies not only these phenomena, but also broadens the boundaries of understanding game not only as an important ontologi-cal phenomenon rooted in the cultural space but also as an epistemological construct that extends the boundaries of cognitive abilities a person, a person as a "person in game", that is able to reproduce new meanings of well-known phenomena. Thus, the expressed position relies on Zh. Delez's statement on the "ideal game": "... having a semantic character, they send (games - T.L.) to another type of activity. Labor or ethics, the caricature and the twin of which they are, and whose elements they bring together in a new order"13.
Consequently, in view of the analysis conducted, it can be assumed that the priority approaches to the study of game, such as phenomenological, proactive, existential, etc., form a stable attitude to game as a utilitarian phenomenon in today's rapidly changing conditions of life, do not allow to fully disclose the depth and game essence, and not as "pure, absolute", as well as not fully reveal the processes of game integration and
8 De Bruin (2005)
9 Grune-Yanoff, Lehtinen (2012)
10 Nguyen (2017)
11 Koskov (2018, 80-81)
12 Retiunskikh (2016, 8)
13 Delez (1995, 81)
gaming elements into other social phenomena. The analyzed works also provide an opportunity to say that one of the main interdisciplinary problems that researchers are working on is the problem of the structure /levels/ architecture of game as a social phenomenon. Accordingly, one of the ways of solving this problem is to use a structured approach to analyzing the essence of game.
Purpose
The methodological deficit of game researches, the difficulties in carrying out the complex analysis of game, the lack of attention to the development of game as an immanent component of various planes of the social space, have led to the formulation of the purpose of the article: to outline the conceptual limits of the structural approach usage to the philosophical analysis of game. This involves solving the finding the principles of game structuring problem as a phenomenon integrated into various branches of the social space.
Presentation of the base material
The application of structural methodology to the analysis of any phenomenon is complicated by the variability of the construction of the structures themselves. Zh. Delez thus defines the minimum conditions for the existence of structures:
" 1) There must be at least two homogeneous series, one of which is defined as "meaning", and the other one as meant. 2) Each of the series is defined by terms that exist only through the relationships maintained between them. Such relationships ... correspond to special events, namely, singularities that can be distinguished within the structure"14. That is why we can speak about creating "models of structures" based on a certain methodological toolkit. C. Lévi-Strauss in this regard states: "Structural research would not be of particular interest if the structure could not be transformed into a model"15.
We also need to take into consideration the fact that putting questions about the development of game structures is a matter of concern - whether we risk creating a limited or vice versa, a comprehensive game model. The fact that the phenomenon of game immediately rejects the existence of static models, because the integration of game into different planes of the social space involves the development of game, together with the area to which it is integrated.
For U. Eco, the very concept of structure is disclosed as an opportunity to streamline a particular situation, to clarify the nature of the research problem. So, U. Eco wrote about the structure as follows: "This is a term that simultaneously defines the whole, parts of this whole, and the relations of parts between themselves, ... about a whole, formed by merged parts, all of which depend on each other, and each of them may be what it is but only in conjunction with all the rest"16.
Existing models, according to U. Eco, reflect the real world. Creating an artificial model, according to U. Eco, aims at solving many social problems. In our perspective, this means - a change in the view of game, the
expansion of the boundaries of its understanding of narrow activity, game transfer from the status of utilitarian phenomenon to understanding it as a natural element of life, embedded in different areas of modern society.
The phenomenon of J. Derrida's game is used to demonstrate the dynamism and openness of the structure: "Game is always a game of absence and presence, but if we want to comprehend it in the root, we must think of it before its alternatives; it is necessary to think of being as a presence or absence, proceeding from the very possibility of game, and not vice versa"17.
Reflecting on the structure of game, analyzing the approach to the construction of structures by C. Lévi-Strauss, J. Derrida believed that it, using a descriptive structuring approach, was based on the ethics of presence. J. Derrida, in turn, confirms the binary nature of the interpretation of the structure, the sign and game: "So, there are two interpretations of the interpretation, structure, sign and game. One seeks to decipher, dreams of deciphering the truth, or the source, slipping away from game and the formation of the sign, and experiencing the need for interpretation as exile. Another, which is no longer oriented to the source, asserts game and tries to go beyond the side of man and humanism, since the name of a person is the name of that being, which throughout the history of metaphysics or ontology, in other words, throughout its history, dreamed of a complete presence, inspired by the trust of the foundation, the source and the end of game"18. It can be assumed that game as an integral part of a particular society changes when society itself is undergoing changes. Analyzing the principles of constructing structures in society, V. Turner refers to three phases of change. Thus, he points out: the removal of a person from his previous place in the social structure, the limiting period, as an intermediate stage of change and the period of completion of changes. By this analogy we can assume that game can also exist in similar stages, except that the first group should include the usual, rooted in a certain social space of game, the second -"transitional" games, let's call them "intermediate" or limiting games. This kind of games can be described as games in a state of change, transformations, which are doubled, ambivalent, capable of dividing existence. Gameplay is endowed with features that are still accepted by the company and already possesses new features that are still hidden at this stage. The very phenomenon of liminality is interesting within the framework of the analyzed problem because of its existence, V. Turner has led to the concept of anti-structure that exists as an alternative to the dominant structure. V. Turner notes:
"There are two "models" of human interconnection superimposed on each other and alternating. The first is the model of society as a structural, differentiated and often hierarchical system of political, legal and economic positions with a multitude of types of assessments that divide people according to the "more" or "less" sign. The second is a model of the society that is
14 Delez (1995, 70).
15 Lévi-Strauss (1985, 252)
16 Eco (1998, 260)
17 Derrida (2000, 367)
18 Derrida (2000, 368)
distinguishable only in the liminal period - as a non-structural or rudimentary structural and relatively undifferentiated"19.
It's quite difficult to "grab" limiting or transitional games in their pure form. This can only be done within a certain social plane. A striking example of game is the M. Bakhtin's carnival. So, T. Lysokolenko writes: "M. Bakhtin within the carnival created a certain value-semantic space in which game reproduces completely different meanings, different from utilitarian meanings. ... They did not play in the carnival, they lived in it as in a parallel world. Here, a certain "other" being was created that co-existed with ordinary life, which was often ridiculed, ignoring the official statutes and roles of people in society ... It can be assumed that within the limits of officially regulated festivities, an "official game" was created, which should be called a certain ceremonial, alien to the carnival space. ... Carnival ... was the sphere for collecting, processing and filtering certain ideas, views and concepts that later either died off, forgotten, or became part of the official dogma, depending on their social effectiveness and the suitability of the authorities"20.
Based on the principles of structuring analysis, we can assume that the following conditions should be considered to be the minimum conditions for constructing the game structure as an integrated phenomenon.
1. The presence of static analysis game planes, allowing one to speak of the syncretic nature of game, and not of its eclectic presence. Given the development game trends as an integrated phenomenon, without pretending to be exhaustive, we can assume that game is fully realized through such phenomena as language, culture and media plane.
2. The binary of game, allowing to define game both directly and indirectly, respectively, affects the expansion of game concept content.
3. Reproduction of new meanings. This condition is due to the fact that G. Delez called the "pocket" of meaning. Thus, the analysis of language, culture and media from the position of presence in these planes of gaming elements significantly changes the idea of what these phenomena are. For example, L. Wittgenstein himself began to comprehend the language of game: "... the whole process of using words in speech can be imagined as one of those games by which children learn their native language. I will call these games "linguistic games"21. Numerous game concepts of culture can reveal the problems of its development and enrich its contents. For example, T. Lysokolenko notes: "The most developed "game concepts" were realized in the following moments. In F. Schiller's works - a game approach as an important element of aesthetic education of a person; "aesthetic visibility", aesthetic game, as a release and an opportunity for intellectual growth; game as a dialectical unity of the formal and the informal; game as art; game as a way out of the stale cultural decadence. In Hesse's works - a game approach to solving
the global problems of contemporary culture; game approach to the problem of preserving the cultural European heritage on the basis of the bright traditions of the East; game approach to pedagogical problems and aspects of the methodology of upbringing of the younger generation; game as a form of preventing the approaching decadence of humanitarian culture"22. Game in the media space, besides the very variety of virtual games, allows us to consider the media space as a total game (J. Baudrillard, N. Luhmann), giving new meanings as a game and forming a certain attitude to the media space itself. Within the limits of philosophical reflection it is possible to dwell on the analysis of media space as "another reality", endowed with a different meaning. Modern researcher O. Novikova approaches the characteristics of this phenomenon as follows: "Being, first of all, the world of game, the virtual space very easily reloads the person from everyday life into the world of childhood, holiday and fantasy ... Personal feelings, emotions, demonstration of relationships to other people are replaced by corporeality shown in the best perspectives" 23.
4. The condition of constructing the structure of game, the presence of intermediate games, embedded in a specific plane of social development. Thus, in the language concept of games, this element should be linked to the theory of performances, with the concept of the same interpretation of the communication process by the participants, because language games in each society are different. Some of them are persistent, some go back to the background, becoming marginal. The rules of language games are a conditional area, within which the old rejection and the legitimization of a new one may take place. Thus, K. Apel emphasized the fact that although a person has to play according to the rules of the existing language game dominant in a particular society, however, the same rules are changed by the person himself. Thus, K. Apel states: "For an individual person, it is probably necessary to introduce new rules that are not subject to verification in the existing communicative community on the basis of the "paradigm" of the existing language game"24. In the context of the analysis of game in the plane of media reality, we can assume that the transitional games are associated with the processes of manipulation, information throwing, fake, etc. Within these phenomena, a "total game" of influence on the formation of positions, thoughts, attitudes to certain phenomena and social events is realized. Depending on the success of a particular type of medial game, either the legitimization or rejection of these games occurs. In particular, the realization of these ideas are found in the works of G. Debord, R. Debray, V. Savchuk, E. Noelle-Neumann.
Conclusions
Game within the limits of socio-philosophical reflection does not lose its relevance, which is due to the expansion of the boundaries of the interpretation of game as a separate ontological category, and with the
19 Turner (1983,170)
20 Lysokolenko (2018,60)
21 Wittgenstein (2003, 227)
22 Lysokolenko (2016, 63)
23 Novikova (2017, 24)
24 Apel (2001, 253)
enrichment of the content of game concept as a phenomenon, integrated to different planes of sociality. It has been demonstrated that the use of a structural approach allows us to discover new layers of analysis and find new facets of understanding game as a sociocul-tural phenomenon. The principles of structuring game for constructing a structure model are formulated. It is substantiated that in order to be able to speak about the game structure, it must be an inherent part of the social phenomenon. These phenomena include language, culture, and media. Within these planes the conceptual core of game is enriched. So, such concepts as "language game", "game concept of culture", "game in the media environment" have already became separate categories. Game has to "play" with the reproduction of meanings and roles in the centre of the social plane, forming a concept "game of structures". Game should be a space for the conceptualization of ideas or their marginalization.
However, the structural methodology, in terms of its separate application, is not seen as an all-embracing analysis of the phenomenon of game, and therefore can not claim to be exhaustive. The study needs to be deepened in the direction of studying the "game of structures" phenomenon and meanings analysis produced by a game.
REFERENCES:
1. Apel, K.-O. (2001). Transtcendentalno-ger-menevtichekoe poniatie iazyka. Trans. From Ger. V.Kurennai & B.Skuratov, Transformatciia filosofii (pp.237-262). Moscow: Logos. (in Russian).
2. De Bruin, B. P. (2005). Game theory in philosophy. An International Review of Philosophy, 24(2), 197-208. doi: 10.1007/s11245-005-5055-3 (in English).
3. Delez, Zh. (1995). The logic of meaning. Trans. by Y. Svirskoy, Moscow: Academy. (in Russian).
4. Derrida, J. (2000). Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences. tr. from Fr. by V. Lapitsky, Writing and Difference (pp.352-368). - St. Petersburg (in Russian).
5. Eco, U. (1998). The Absent Structure. Introduction to Semiotics. St. Petersburg: LLP TC Petropo-lis. (in Russian).
6. Grune-Yanoff, T., & Lehtinen, A. (2012). Philosophy of game theory. Uskali Maki (Hg.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Economics, Oxford, 13, 531-576. Retrieved from https://people.kth.se/~gryne/pa-pers/GT_HPS_Proofs.pdf (in English).
7. Koskov, M.A. (2018) Game: the experience of philosophical theory. Bulletin of the Leningrad State University. of A.S. Pushkin. 1, 69-85. Retrieved from https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/igra-opyt-filosofskoy-teorii (in Russian).
8. Lévi-Strauss, K. (1985). Structural anthropology tr. from Fr. by V. Ivanova. Moscow: Nauka. (in Russian).
9. Lysokolenko, T.V. (2018). The phenomenon of M. Bakhtin's carnival in the context of the philosophy of game. The scientific heritage, 21, P.2, 59-62 (in Russian).
10. Lysokolenko, T.V. (2016). Game as a cultural phenomenon in the descriptions of F. Schiller, H. Hesse, E.Fink. Aktual'ni problemy filosofii' ta soci-ologii': naukovo-praktychnyj zhurnal, 9, 60-63. (in Russian).
11. Novikova, O.N. (2017). The Virtual Game World as a Simulacrum of Life. Humanitarian vector, 3, 23-29 (in Russian).
12. Nguyen, C. T. (2017). Philosophy of Games. Philosophy Compass, 12 (8). Retrieved from http://onlineli-
brary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phc3.12426/full. (in English).
13. Retiunskikh, L.T. (2016). The philosophy of game. Moscow: University book. (in Russian).
14. Rosin, V. M. (2018). The nature of sociality: Problems of methodology and ontology of social sciences. Moscow: LENAND. (in Russian).
15. Turner, V. (1983). The ritual process: structure and anti-structure. V.A.Beilis, Trans. Symbol and ritual. (pp.104-264). Moscow: Science, (in Russian).
16. Wittgenstein, L. (2003). Philosophical research. Languages as an image of the world.(pp.220-546). Moscow: AST; St. Petersburg:Terra Fantastica. (in Russian).
