Basically, play unites beings and creates a sense of community. Again, this could be how play is related to survival, because being part of an in-group will help with obtaining material items needed for survival.

It could be argued that play is essential to survival because one needs to play along with play to cohesively live in a community.

I find it interesting how this still holds true today. When we encounter someone who doesn't want to engage in forms of play with us, we often form a group and view the non-player as an outcast. Another reason for the existence of play could be to unite others as a mechanism of survival.

I find the juxtaposition between the order of play and the chaos of the real world to be very interesting. This ties back to the question of why does play exist, and perhaps it's because it's an escape from reality.

Essentially, play is something we don't physically need to survive, but spiritually require.

Is doomscrolling considered play?

I disagree. People could participate in activities such as tournaments, music, and pageants (which Huizing classifies as play) without necessarily doing it voluntarily. They may have been forced by parents or be forced to participate out of a sense of responsibility, and while they are participating in these forms of play, it's not always voluntarily and it's not always out of joy. Yet, it's still play.

It seems that the author classifies merrymaking as forms of play, including masquerades as play. I'm interested to see how other authors write on similar topics as we read more literature and are exposed to more opinions.

Just a thought, but earlier in the foreword, Huizinga mentioned how they had to fill in the gaps of their knowledge themself and that the reader should not expect documentation of every word. I wonder how much of what the author says is in consensus with other historians and how much of what the author says is their own thoughts.

Essentially, play is a distinct concept from actions such as laughing or joking. While these actions may be part of play, play itself stands separate from these ideas.

I'm a little confused by the author's definitions. Earlier, the author stated that concepts like justice, good, truth, beauty, and seriousness can be denied while play is undeniable. Now, the author is stating that play can be serious. How can a concept like "seriousness" be denied but also be used to describe an irrefutable concept?

Under these definitions, would a prayer be considered as play? It involves imagination and problem-solving with an end goal to ensure well-being. Where do we draw the line for what is considered play?

I find it interesting how the author situates play as the foundation of civilization. I never considered that play is involved in language. I feel that the author is classifying anything involving imagination or problem-solving as "play" (language, myths, stories, etc). Where is the line drawn for what is play?

This is the author's definition of what play is, but I feel that play does not necessarily have to be social. Sometimes people play games by themselves to pass the time - is that still considered social?

This makes me wonder if play plays a role in forming culture itself. Similar to the chicken or the egg question, does play form culture or does culture form play?

I love this interpretation. I wonder if there's an argument for play being logical.

Did not understand what the author was conveying in this sentence. Would love if anyone would like to share their interpretations of this sentence.

Googled this word and it means unnecessary.

I find it interesting how the author asserts play as a universal truth, yet states other similar abstractions can be denied. As of right now, I don't see why play is an abstraction that cannot be denied while the abstraction of truth or seriousness can be denied.

Play as a concept definitely doesn't sound rational. If play was meant to just develop qualities needed for survival, other habits would be more efficient. However, I also believe that beings just need to have some fun to make life worth living.

I find this statement interesting. Is it possible to measure play using the empirical evidence we usually think of when we think of research? How do historians approach researching abstract concepts such as play? Are there standard procedures to study concepts such as play?

I find this interesting because I also assumed that play is meant to serve some evolutionary function, such as building skills needed to survive in the world. I'm curious to know what everyone's hypotheses are about the function of play. Furthermore, is there a general consensus people have reached about the function of play or is the community divided across theories about the function of play?

This makes me wonder if play is a form of training that socializes a being to survive in the world, similar to how play can be used to educate kids.

This make me wonder whether play is essential to survival. Is entertainment or other interactions similar to play necessary for civilizations to form or species to survive?

I remember in class the question of whether play is strictly limited to people was asked. I wonder what the argument for that would be, because it seems very obvious to me that play is a phenomenon found across species. Adding to that, I wonder what species could arguably not play. For example, do insects play?