A Naturalistic Philosophy of Play by Nathaniel Cross Gindele Department of Philosophy Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ O en Flanagan Jr$ Supervisor ___________________________ &ichael Fere'ohn ___________________________ Wayne Norman ___________________________ David Won" Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the re)uirements for the de"ree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Duke University *+,- AB%/0AC/ A Naturalistic Philosophy of Play by Nathaniel Cross Gindele Department of Philosophy Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ O en Flanagan$ Supervisor ___________________________ &ichael Fere'ohn ___________________________ Wayne Norman ___________________________ David Won" An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the re)uirements for the de"ree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Duke University *+,- Copyri"ht by Nathaniel Cross Gindele *+,- Abstract /his is a philosophical work on the sub'ect of play1 Or"ani2ed around a handful of )uestions$ the thesis approaches in)uiry by first inte"ratin" empirical lines of research and then applyin" the methods of philosophy1 The first chapter is an introductory one that serves to motivate the pro'ect and outline its central features1 Chapter 2 concerns the question of why humans play from an evolutionary and psycholo"ical perspective1 /he conclusions reached in this chapter form the basis of chapter 34s ethical discussion of why and ho we ou"ht to play1 Chapter 4 uses an interpretation of Jean Pia"et4s The Moral Judgment of the Child as a steppin" stone to an investi"ation of ho play and moral development are related1 Chapter 5 addresses the metaphysics of play by cri6 ti)uin" e7tant philosophical and biolo"ical accounts of what play is before advancin" a novel theory based on active en"agement and frivolousness1 To conclude the disserta6 tion$ chapter 6 ties to"ether themes from various chapters1 iv Contents Abstract11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111iv 9ist of Fi"ures11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111vi Ackno led"ments111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111vii ,1 Play hides$ philosophy seeks1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111, *1 Why we play1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111: 31 Why we ou"ht to play1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111183 51 Play and moral development11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,+- -1 What is play;11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,-- 81 A philosophy of play111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,<- 0eferences11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111*++ .io"raphy111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111*,* v vi List of Figures !i"ure 1: Loren24s hydraulic drive model1 The water$ labeled 'drive4$ represents activity6 specific ener"y which accumulates in the reservoir1 It applies pressure to the sprin"6 loaded valve at the bottom of the tank as does the e7ternal stimuli$ here represented by the wei"ht1 A sufficient amount of force releases the water into the collectin" pan$ and hen water flo s throu"h the different holes different behaviors are elicited1 Image from Berri"e (*++5?$ modified from ori"inal source in Loren2 and Leyhausen >,<:3?111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111*5 vii Acknowledgments = would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those who helped make this disser6 tation happen1 My parents$ Ted and Ellen$ and sister Mar"aret for their un averin" support1 My dear friend Steve Martin and fello office mates Gordon Steenber"en and Matt Braddock for providin" e)ual parts feedback and welcome distraction1 Spe6 cial thanks to my do" Jack who has tau"ht me more about play than any book$ and to %ara Bernstein who got me started on this pro'ect1 Thanks to my adviser O en Flana6 "an and the rest of my committee$ David Won"$ Wayne Norman$ Michael Fere'ohn$ for all stickin" with me1 I especially want to thank everyone whom I4ve cited for mak6 in" this work possible and everyone else who has helped me alon" the way (there are a lot of you?1 Your contributions could not be more appreciated1 =4d also like to thank the Duke Philosophy Dissertation Seminar for givin" me helpful feedback on t o of my drafts$ as well the Duke Philosophy graduate students for their feedback on my Work6=n-Pro"ress presentation$ “Philosophy of Play: Play Cides$ Philosophy SeeksD1 Thanks to the Duke Center for Co"nitive Neuroscience for viii their feedback on my presentation$ “Why We PlayD1 Lastly$ thanks to Geor" Duffner for makin" the beautiful and comprehensive E. Garamond an open-source typeface1 i7 Chapter 1 Play hides, philosophy seeks A Non-Traditional Inquiry = could tell you all about the importance of play$ ho it can enrich one4s life$ provide meanin" throu"h self-e7pression$ throu"h self-reali2ation$ ho it can make one a better student$ a better friend$ a better person$ or why no one should live without it1 I could tell you all these thin"s but I doubt that it would make a difference to a staunch tradi6 tionalist who doesn4t see the value of this admittedly non-traditional philosophical topic1 Play is not one of the “chosenD dialectics$ and there4s nothin" that I can say that ould move it from the periphery to the core of philosophy or to make its history any6 thin" more than a handful of passin" remarks separated by lon" pauses1 The difference then bet een those who will get the most out of this dissertation and those who will be dismissive of it comes do n to ho one perceives the philosophical silence on the matter1 If you see it as evidence that nothin" more needs to be said$ then I have nothin" for you1 Ho ever$ if you embrace e7pansion and inclusion in philosophy$ and you see , the worth in findin" ne places for philosophy to take root$ this silence should be seen as nothin" less than an enthusiastic invitation to speak and to investi"ate what can be said1 What is there to Say? As I was piecin" to"ether what would later become the chapters of this dissertation$ I tried to imagine what fundamental questions a naturalistic philosophy of play should seek to ans er1 I arrived at the follo in" list: What is play; Why do we play; Why should we play; Co should we play; What is the relationship bet een play and moral development; /his dissertation is an attempt to ans er these five questions as best as possible by any means possible1 We will go where the questions lead us$ which will often be outside the proper bounds of philosophy1 Ho ever$ I4m of the conviction that it4s not the job of philosophers to mind boundariesE it4s to seek out the best vantage points wherever they may be1 As it so happens$ some of the best vie s of play come from evolutionary biolo"y$ etholo"y and psycholo"y1 So much the worse for the traditionalist approach1 * The Whys of Play /o be"in the pro'ect$ we will start with the t in queries of why we play and why should we play1 The first question concerns a “scientificD is$ the second a “philosophi6 calD ought$ yet the methods of philosophy can inform the first question$ and a psycho6 lo"ical account of play can inform the second1 We will be faced with the task of brid"in" the normative-descriptive gap$ and despite what critics say it4s not a matter pullin" a rabbit out of a hat or makin" somethin" magically disappear1 It re)uires a lit6 tle care and nothin" more1 It4s in fact the ethical non6naturalists who are in need of magic$ for they claim that they can paint normative portraits without lookin" at their human models1 Thou"h talented$ these painters are not of a supernatural varietyE thou"h pleasin" to the eye$ their portraits are not of the commissioned sub'ect1 If any ideali2ation is to capture a likeness$ it must be drawn from a picture of what human bein"s are actually like$ and we have no better picture than the one science provides1 Of course$ this defense of empirically informed ethics is preemptory with re"ard to the sub'ect at hand1 Such detractors mi"ht even be a welcome addition to a play literature$ scant as it is$ in which metaphysical issues overshado if not entirely eclipse ethical ones1 Perhaps the most systematic discussion of the ethics of play comes in a short passage in Plato4s Laws in which he discusses ho the play of children ou"ht to be shaped to further their ends1 To say this is the best philosophical discussion of 3 play and morality is not to say much1 It4s insi"htful but not particularly profound$ and it4s e7ceedin"ly brief$ in dire need of a Whiteheadian footnote1 Play and Moral De elopment =n the fourth chapter$ we will investi"ate the relationship bet een play and moral development1 To start$ I revisit Jean Piaget4s seminal The Moral