This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
University of Tennessee
P H I L O S O P H Y AS P L A Y Following closely upon the work of Johan Huizinga's Homo Ludens, this discussion will seek to deal with what Huizinga calls the "play element" in culture. More specifically, there will be an attempt to understand the relationship between play and philosophy ; Huizinga initiates such an attempt himself. However, while Huizinga's work in this particular area is fundamental, it may also have its inadequacies. Hopefully, these inadequacies can be examined by carefully making a distinction between philosophy as a "play with ideas," and philosophy as a "play of ideas." On the former level, statements about a so-called "play element" in culture might be very helpful in the type of extrinsic, cultural explication which Huizinga initiates ; on the latter, more intrinsic, level, to speak of play only as an "element" in culture may be ontologically inadequate. The discussion will thus attempt to move beyond the work of Huizinga and qualify it in terms ot: the work on play by Martin Heidegger, and more especially by Hans-Georg Gadamer. Again, the essential distinction to be drawn will be that which is found between "play with ideas" and "play of ideas." Huizinga may best be understood as a cultural exegete whose most basic presupposition is that culture as a whole should be viewed as sub specie ludi. He means by this that play is a primordial activity, that it precedes that which is usually termed "cultural," and is identified with man and rationality ; animals did not have to wait for man to teach them to play. He also means that there is a primordial quality of play, the fun of play, which cannot be fully analyzed or explained in terms of its extrinsic manifestations (such as : play serving to vent unused energies, provide relaxation, train for work, or as a form of wish-fulfilling fantasy), or reduced to any other mental categories. Fun, which is the intrinsic correlate and manifestation ("quality," "essence") of play, functions somewhat as a Moorean "ultimate simple." Play is "an absolutely primary category of life, ''z a "totality''~ or gestalt event, which is mind, but which extends beyond the self-conscious rationality identified with human beings. At this point it should be carefully noted that the translated subtitle of Huizinga's Homo Ludens, "a study of the play element in culture," may be 315
such as myth. it does follow a decidedly historical predisposition." He would not make this "correction" protesting that "it was not my object to define the place of play among alle the other manifestations of culture. especially in comparison to the work of Heidegger and Gadamer which will be seen. play is to be understood. language~ philosophy." seems more appropriate. at its inception it would 316 . but to ascertain how far culture itself bears the character of play.." T h e discussion of philosophy begins by calling ~ttention to t h e early Greek sophist. he might have said: "Consequently. ''4 In a statement which will have significance for the discussion below. The discussion can also come to describe more specifically what is meant by speaking of philosophy as a "play with ideas. can be characterized in terms of play. in a sense. He says : "Consequently." the more extrinsic terminology. culture is to be understood as a play phenomenon : it is to be approached ontologically. as a cultural phenomenon. Attention can now be given to the section of Homo Ludens entitled "Play Forms in Philosophy" which can serve as a general example of Huizinga's historical exegesis of the play element.. archetypal activities of culture. such an assessment would be in contradiction to the "culture sub specie ludi" idea. or that the problem in the translation of the subtitle may at least suggest that Huizinga was aware of play as more than merely an element in culture .CHAR~LES STEPHEN BYRUM a misnomer. his work would have more precisely served as a precursor to that of Heidegger and Gadamer. It is to be approached historically. and.. he further said : "For many years the conviction has grown upon me that civilization arises in and as play. ''~ At this point.. ritual.Gorgias 8) .tagoras 7) and a game (xcetTwov. while the importance of the work is not to be diminished. TM He then proceeds to show how some of the most fundamental. poetry. He recalls 3 a lecture entitled "The Play Element of Culture" which he was encouraged on numerous occasions to change to "in Culture. Had he followed his original conviction." If this had been the manner of his expression. However.. instead of dealing more with the implications of his ideas about civilization arising in and as play.Pro. while it may be pursued in the spirit of the "play element of culture. whose craft is something between an art ( z[Zv~7v :za2atdv . it may be seen that Huizinga is extremely close to Heidegger and Gadamer. and law. However. he moves in an extrinsic direction away from this statement to an historical exegesis of the play "element" as it manifests itself in culture.. "in culture.
9 Philosophy is further associated with youth. It is not likely in the entire history of philosophy that a more perfect example of the type of figure that Huizinga is describing could be found than Giordano Bruno whose mean&rings through Western Europe and Great Britain were both famous and infamous. The dialogues of Socrates and Plato. jousting with words. in which the audiences laughed and applauded with each assault and retort. such philosophical rivalry was readily apparent. The philosopher's role is seen as a specialization of the role of the ancient seer. and brought fame. Huizinga stresses the way in which the Sophists engaged in verbal contests. and acclaim to the victorious philosopher. significantly called by Spenser "The Fairie Queen. Huizinga concludes that the learned discussions of the modern philosophical periodicals." where a man such as Bruno obtained the highest honors." The. An ideal environment for Huizinga's philosophical playfulness was the court of Elizabeth I of England.PHLLOSOPHY AS PLAY be proper to speak of both an aesthetic and an athletic dimension. A lengthy "volley" between masters filled the audience with delight and excitement. riddles. take a similar form. and sable furs. and haughty 317 . linen and cambric collars. Parmenides. the debates of men such as Erasmus and Luther. and even the refutation of the Sophists by Aristotle. Such activities were associated with leisure (oXo2~) time. and Huizinga etymologically demonstrates that even the word school originally meant "leisure. and ideas in the same manner that the athlete would in the Olympian arena. an exhibition. pressed to pronounce upon the problem of existence. lxeze~6vTcov). During the Middle Ages. It is quite ironic that the Age of Reason was the age of wigs. and where even the Queen learned Latin and Greek so that the scholarly conversation could be carried on in the erudite languages of the ancients. Philosophy was a performance. One quickly thinks of the scholastic disputation. Philosophy is also seen to be born in an almost recreational environment. honor. an activity identified with youthful distractions and pleasant pastime. calls this task "playing a difficult game" (Jroay/xamd~& t aal6gav ~ag~etv). medicine-man. association with play is unmistakable : Theaetetus in the Sophist has to admit to the Stranger from Elea that the sophist belongs to the sort of people "who give themselves up to play" (zgor ~r aat>. or rates. That which begins with the Sophists is indicative of the further history of philosophy. prophet. and other intellectual rivalries which often gained widespread public attention.
the ideas of the ancients (which had attained an almost sacred status) and those introduced by the new discoveries of science were being bantered about. They were involved in the activity which fulfilled their unique individuality more than any other. the understandings of ~'play witk ideas" and "play of ideas" are very close. and the ideas their playthings. No longer is there a balanced reciprocity between idea and thinker." Almost like the ball in a tennis match. playing with ideas becomes self-conscious." This means that there are variations in the way that man sees himself as transcending the ideas. but increasingly man sees himself in the position of transcending the ideas and manipulating them. However. Almost like a derby. During the period from the Sophists until the last quarter of the nineteenth century. the ideas of the ancients were held in particular awe. In fact. one can come to talk about "playing with ideas. throughout much of this period. and even belligerent. The philosophers were the players. calculated.CHARILES STEPHEN BYRUM atmosphere of the convening of scholarly societies is not far removed from the playful. using all of their semantical and rhetorical skill. There is a great gulf which separates the fanciful colloquy of the court of Elizabeth I and. At this point. One should not think at this point that the "play" of these philosophers was not serious. air of the Middle Ages. or in what one might call the pre-modem age. with the coming of the modern age this closeness is shattered. the propagandized manipulation of the media in the 1968 and 1972 United States presidential 318 . the philosophers "rode" their ideas. though polemical. jockeying for position before their excited audiences. freedom. there seems to be a fairly balanced status between ideas and thinkers. At this point. it is only in the perverse solemnity of the modern age that it becomes adversely pathological to see "Life" as a game. as was mentioned above. This can be noticed now and will be explained below. for example. and while it was often pursued in agonistic earnest. The thoughts on "playing with ideas" can be qualified to a certain extent by saying that there are degrees of this "playing with. To juxtapose necessarily playfulness and seriousness is fundamentally fallacious. It is only in an age influenced by the inhibitions of Puritanical piety and such perversions of thinking as the so-called "Protestant Work Ethic" that rigid distinctions are made between that which involves play and that which should be taken seriously . it was also their play giving them their fun and its correlate. which is the advent of the modern age for Huizinga.
. there has been a fatal shift from playfulness to over-seriousness. these elements become bound together in what economist John Kenneth Galbraith calls the "technostructure" where the euphemistic "name of the game. professional football in the United States has become primarily an "over-30" 319 ." Huizinga would have welcomed the disclaimers of the technological society. He might also have noticed that what had begun calmly enough in the Enlightenment was at this same time becoming reason running rampant in the beginnings of the industrial revolution which would quickly attain the excesses of the technological society.. is not play or fun. "The old play-factor has undergone almost complete atrophy." the technological society. the so-called "counter-culture." Here is a movement which can best be understood as a reaction against the over-seriousness of the technostructure. but money and material resource. man was proclaiming that reason incarnated as science could solve any problem. It will be recalled that Huizinga saw play as mind.they're just fool-lug around. the essential element or quality.PHI. its members are fundamentally players. The virtue [an old idea] has gone out of the game. 12 and places significance on the aesthetic as it moves beyond the purely rational to the emotional which encompasses more adequately what Huizinga called the "totality" of man . one cannot help but note in passing that it is in this same period of change that Huizinga is describing that the United States began successfully to establish its "manifest destiny. Finally. ''n and a culture in which the greatest failings can be traced to man's taking himself too seriously. The technostructure is old and established. and the unvirtous status of contemporary politics. now.." or "young people aren't seriousminded enough anymore . It is youth oriented (Huizinga had found Callicles very early seeing the importance of this aspect). For Huizinga. ''1~ Huizinga notices that at the same time that the play element begins to wane other play-related activities begin to show significant changes. The technostructure can appropriately be described as a culture in which the only play is "false play. Athletics in general began to become more specialized and professionalized ." or to follow Huizinga. and from its close-minded bastions of extrinsic power come such pronouncements as "youth no longer see the value of work.LOSOPHY AS PLAY campaigns." Significantly. but as going beyond what was merely rational . cricket players could still be photographed playing in top hats. It is of utmost significance that one see the correlation between professionalized athletics which Huizinga prophetically described as "sports sui generis. until mid-1800.
therefore. However. it remains for Heidegger.sic or sick ." but who recreated the play-element in philosophy and paved the way for Heidegger's "death of metaphysics" which sounded the death knell on rationality running rampant. who was also self-esteemed as the nation's "Number One Football Fan. has erred in seeking the answer from individual beings. the war in Southeast Asia. and not 320 . For Heidegger.13 Of further ironic significance one can recall that it was Richard Nixon.LES STEPHEN BYRUM affair. philosophy becomes a gay science or joyful wisdom.CHAR. and more especially for Gadamer in the particular area of play. whose work is sometimes seen as "philosophy gone over the brink.. This "forgetfulness" amounts to a misplaced concentration of thought in regard to the "Grund-frage" (ground question) of metaphysics. who was brought to power by the manipulative forces of the technostructure ("Their Finest . the "death of metaphysics" has occurred because of the "forgetfulness" of Being.Hour"). Not only will it become possible through their work to offer positive statements about "playing with ideas. Huizinga evidently knew little about Nietzsche. philosophy's Cartesian-inspired over-seriousness is mediated ." and who celebrated one of his most ignoble moments sitting before a television set watching a football game while the counter-culture marched in protest against the greatest travesty of the technological society. which is epitomized for Heidegger by Descartes and modern science." but also to offer the more significant understanding of the "playing of ideas. For Nietzsche. the discussion will give at least limited attention to Heidegger and then move to a consideration of the ideas on play found in Gadamer's Wahrheit und Methode (Truth and Method). but in his one mention of him in Homo Ludens 14 he takes a position against Nietzsche's more rationalistic critics and sees the possibility of his thought leading philosophy back to its antique origins." Again. to move beyond Nietzsche. Once again it becomes possible to speak about "playing with ideas" without being pejorative." The "play of ideas" will then be described in such a way that it will not only be shown to be more fundamental than "playing with ideas. why are there essents (beings) rather than nothing ? Human rationality. but his work is precluded by that of Heidegger ." but also be shown to hold inherent correctives to those excesses already demonstrated as potentially within the range of "playing with ideas.. the primary work in this area is that of Gadamer. Huizinga would further have welcomed and could have profited greatly from a fuller awareness of the thought of Nietzsche.
one might also ask if there is any etymological relationship between the Indo-Germanic vas. In an etymological consideration similar to that of Huizinga. Heidegger uses the same words to describe the essence of Being's disclosurehappening (the idea of "happening. Heidegger then comes to describe very specifically the disclosure-happen321 . an important similarity between Heidegger and Huizinga can be noted. le which is derived from aard." to the experiential. stepping forth into the light of itself. rationalistic conceptualization. but that the closest may be the Dutch aardigheid. aletheia-event of Being. this is the fun of playing.~ Heidegger's attitude toward Dasein shifts away from authentic beings being their own "there.. because there is a transcending of the rationalistic. and the old "being of beings" becomes the "arriving of that which arrives" (das Anwesen des Anwesenden). As a concluding aside. substantive essence). taking place. therefore. a direct relation between the "fun" of play. Huizinga has said that there is a primordial quality or essence to play which defies the same kind of logical. Being is the emergent power.iv Before moving directly to what Heidegger has to say specifically about play. in its self-disclosure.PHI~LOSOPHY AS PLAY Being itself. There is thus an experience of Being rather than a logical. and means the same as the German Art and Wesen. which carries the verbal force of "coming to reside. ~as. Heidegger notes that in the German language "essence" is translated Wesen and reflects the Indo-Germanic root. arriving. He then says that no other language has an exact equivalent to the English word fun. and the disclosure-happening. this may be difficult to "understand". rational conceptualization that Heidegger mentioned in regard to Being . Admittedly." There is thus the movement from the earlier Heidegger's use of the word Sein to the use of the word Anwesen. "is the final explanation." truth as aletheia negating any conceptions of a static. thus." Being as "because" (Well) is all we know on Heidegger's earth but precisely what we need to know. Being as ground therefore is physis : the emergent-enduring-power. ''1~ Goethe succinctly provides the summary remark : "How ? When ? Why ? The gods are silent ! Hold yourself in because and do not ask why ?. and Huizinga's rates. for Huizinga. There may exist. Being itself. the final "because. Being is the inner power of the being by which it is. the "abyssal" character of the question of Being. disclosed (aletheia) "there" of Being's being. Being is the perduring power which remains whatever fluctuations may occur within beings.
but as the mode of Being for which culture is sub specie.. the Dasein of Being. and one can see both the ideal sense of "playing with ideas" and at least begin to catch a glimpse of the more essential reality of the "play of ideas. not simply as an "element" of culture or as being "in" culture.. having fun. Being plays "because it plays. ''2~ Heidegger thus makes the distinction that this discussion has sought between "play of ideas" and "play with ideas. Heidegger is thus able to follow the intrinsic implications of Huizinga's first statements. although it retains the upper hand.. but occasions of. it follows from this assertion. within this context one can properly speak of "culture sob specie ludi." Heidegger also describes the role of man in such a culture. Its missionary sendings and withdrawals are a toying of Being with man. the dialogue is characterized by a creative openness to the "new-not-yet" which continually arrives in perpetual novelty." and man is caught up in that play. Being "toys with" man. Being needs man's attentive co-operation. but afterwards appeared under the guise of idea.LES S T E P H E N BYRUM ing of Being in terms of play. and for Heidegger the totality of the world. Heidegger's philosopher is 322 . In this dialogue with Being (Heidegger sees man and Being as existing in a "duet"). Rather.19 One can thus speak of play. Gadamer will speak of a "conversation" with Being.. T M Being and man are involved in an inter-play . It becomes appropriate to speak of play as the mode of Being ! And. that they are not only participating in. 21 man achieves his human being. The historical movement of Being is a play." and has envisioned the ideal way in which the philosopher plays ~u~lh ideas. will-to-power." "The play of Being is not one-sided. is the place where Being plays itself. and man has fun.. plays. substance. The role of man is to "play along with" (mitspielen) the play.CHAR. ontic answers to questions is the non-absolutized questioning process itself : "anything like a final explanation is simply inappropriate. can neither be deciphered nor governed by man. The idea of freedom [authentic existence] is transformed from the power to take over the direction of one's being to the willingness to "work with" and "play with" Being. that as human beings (and perhaps this can be extended to beings in general) are playful.. and Buber's "dialogue" (Zwiesprache) of the Ich-Du relationship is also instructive. The process of Being in which it revealed itself to the Presocratics. that which is. More important than discursive. Philosophically. and technology. objectivity.
tradition. and the inquiry itself is tantamount to the experience of Being. the transmission of tradition. understanding or thinking is the disclosure-happening play of Being. Therefore. What now finally remains is for Gadamer to build upon the work of Heidegger. Gadamer (in a way similar to both Heidegger and Huizinga) sees that the mode of understanding is language.PHI~LOSOPHY AS PLAY involved in a never-ending process of inquiry. is the more specifically explained mode of Being and play : that is. the word idea which has previously acknowledged. which is the way of Being itself. it is an attempt to experience Being as understanding. it is not a hermeneutics which merely seeks to understand Being. or within understanding. several items are being conjointly brought together into a synonymous context : Being. Such a hermeneutic is not a methodology or an attempt to conceive understanding as the result of man's subject/object relationship with his world (as in the hermeneutics of Schleiermacher or Dilthey). and become even more explicit about the play of ideas. but as the entering into an event of transmission in which past and present are continually mediated. It is rather an attempt to see understanding as a process of eventful happenings. and think more in terms of "play with Being" and "play of Being." Gadamer's work can be understood as a "hermeneutic of Being. transmission of traditions. a method. or thinking. It may also have come time in the discussion to stop using. for Gadarner. ''2a Therefore. tionally analytic philosophy might attempt to act divisively with these items . and "the way of being of man himself. but quite the contrary. the process (and it must remain process) of understanding or thinking. 25 Furthermore. and language. there are two inter323 . and that language thus becomes the most fundamental form of play. and in doing so become more immersed in an encounter (Buber's Begegnung) with aletheia-truth." However. This is what must gain validity in hermeneutical theory which is much too dominated by the ideal of procedure. manipulative "playing with" described in relation to the egotistical excesses of technological rationalism. the type of philosophy which Gadamer calls for would realize more their intrinsic interrelatedness. substantival overtones. Heidegger's way is called "ideal" in contrast to the perverted. thinking. T M Understanding itself is not to be thought of so much as an action of subjectivity. "Understanding is not reconstruction but mediation. play~ understanding. A ra. or at least explicitly qualify. Within Being's playfulness.
e. does not stand subjectively above the tradition. language. ''m At this point. manipulating. In relation to this episodic element. The philosopher is in an active reciprocity with understanding. not that one is playing. with all of the prejudices or worldview which constitute his uniqueness. therefore.LES STEPHEN BYRUM related elements. as each thinker plays with an idea. Thinking is the place where Being clears itself and shines forth. but that one is being played ! Any single individual or single occasion of understanding is a subordinate part of the whole movement of understanding." and a trans-subjective element which is related to the dimension of "playing of. its being played. it is justifiable to be involved in a playing with ideas or Being. Being game lives in its presentation and representations. but as the achievement of Being. Man is not defined prior to or independent of the event of Being which thinking essentially serves. the philosopher only authentically exists in this conveyance. an episodic element which is related to the dimension of "playing with. which is thus described as a game. The most accurate characterization of thinking. understanding. he is a part of the life or truth of that idea. Thin~ing has an ontological status tran- scending human intentionality and purpose." Episodic means that "every particular 'act' of understanding is a moment in the life of tradition itself.... The most essential understanding of man is thus gained. The basic relation is not man's relation to himself (i. the tradition only lives. Not only is man not primary in his relation to Being : man is at all only insofar as he is addressed by Being and. The tradition.." his subjectivity). The thinker or philosopher. but serves as a conveyor of the tradition from past to present to future . 28 324 . Being only is. the entire play of Being. his "self-consciousness. which exists as an open questioning which does not seek absolute finality in either understanding's past (for example. ''=6 Therefore. not in seeing him as transcending. participates in the event of Being. but his relation to and immersion in the event of Being. Trans-subjective means that "what takes place in understanding is a mediation and transformation of past and present that transcends the knower's manipulative control. is not as the achievement or work of man.. Being.CHAR. a particular text) or in its present (the thinker's present set of prejudices). for involvement in true play or a real game brings the realization. or autonomous from the whole. but as intrinsically related to the totality of Being as a player who is being played (or Being-played). the game/play imagery becomes of utmost importance for Gadamer. in his thinking. or of Being itself.
In a sense.." The greatest threat to philosophy. the play as such.PHILOSOPHY AS PLAY Therefore. or thinking in general from becoming absolutized or ideological. to thinking in general. His effort. and his thinking process is his being played by Being. its desire for. a~ In conclusion. At the root of such absolutized ideology is that which stands diametrically opposed to human being and freedom Der se. i.e. either for philosophy as a specific sort of discipline or for thinking in general. to follow Heidegger's terminology. The players are drawn into the play in such a way that they are unburdened. pathological potential . such too-serious absolutizing is inevitably the essential villain.. pursuit of.." it still needs the players as those to whom it displays itself. or his play. but the medial meaning. and expectation of "the new. and in turn to fun.2." Being transcends him. But even though "the play's the thing. is part of an endless process . the spontaneous to-andfro movement accomplished by play. and one's being played. a game." as a pure self-display. and take itself too seriously in false play. Only when it claims a terminus by absolutizing a single repetition of the whole does it cease to be play. the dimension of "playing of" or "played by" has an inherent iconoclastic element. In such a game absolutes become tentative absolutes. and Being itself. the primary implication which can be drawn from Gadamer's statements on "the play of ideas" or "the play of Being" may be that. the philosopher is the servant of Being. who begin by playing only to become played in the process. as part of a game in which Being is "there" through one's play. a totality . a full appreciation of the dimension of "play of" or "played by" serves to protect philosophy from becoming too serious. the "missionary" of the "mission" of Being. The most original meaning of play is neither the object nor the subject of play.~ it has no aim in which it terminates and continually renews itself in repetition. the philosopher is a participant in the "play of ideas" or more precisely "the play of Being. freedom. released from the strain of taking the initiative. not as a subjective absolute. and "play takes over." It is no small thing to think of oneself. but as a part of an on-going process. establishment enforced adherence to ideas that have been sanctified as absolutes. The dimension of "playing with" has a definite. and 325 . Such philosophical narrow-mindedness issues in such excesses as the technostructure or "the forgetfulness of Being. When human' being and freedom are emasculated or threatened. is a narrow-minded. humanity.
C. 150." Man and World. 152.CHARtLES STEPHEN BYRUM principles become operative principles. ibid. Caputo. 3 (1970). There is a buoyancy. and it shall set you free") in the speculative dialectic of the game. Quoted in John D. Quoted in Linge. pp. 29 Theodore Kisiel." p. 19 Caputo. 274275.. ibid. 20 Ibid. p. 3. p. 206. pp. p. p. a certain tensionless frivolity to understand or be oneself in the context of the ripening' of Being. p. ibid. the world-play of Being. 2. ibid. 13 1974 Atlanta sports survey. p. and Play in Heldegger. 1958). 6. ibid. Ground. :to I-IL. 3 (hereafter HL). :t4 HL. pp. 15 Martin He]degger. p. 25 Hans-Georg Gadamer. pp. 21 Ibid. 2r Linge. ibid. 7. Hermeneutics (Evanston : Northwestern University Press.. Mohn. p. "IntrodueAion to Translation of Gadarner's Essays. foreword. 4 HL.. s H L . 6 HL. 198-199. 30 Ibid. z H L . 22 Ibid. Der Satz yore Grund (Pfullingen: Verlag Giinter Neske. p. there is a certain freedom ("you shall know the aletheia-truth. p. 371. cit. "The Happening of T r a d i t i o n : The Hermeneutics of G a d a m e r and Heidegger. 18 HL. Palmer. us Linge. NOTES 1 Johan Huizinga. 5 IlL. 7 I-IL. an iconoclastic waiting without idolatrous absolutes. Einfiihrung in die Metaphysik. 11-13. p. ibid. 149. 3 (1969). 206.. B. 40. 9 HL. 31. 23 Richard E. 34. an immersion into because without a final why . an endless questioning-answering dialectic with Being. Wahrheit und Methode (Tiibingen : J. a carefreeness. 12 H L . 1969). 16 Caputo. p. 326 ." Man and World. 46-47. 9. 2. 163. Homo Ludens (Boston : Beacon Press. p.. 1957). p. p. 147. 3 I / L . "Being. a being played by the play of Being. :t7 Heidegger. 24 David Linge. 30. op. 1965). :tl H L . 34. 2s Ibid. p. 40. 1970). Auflage (Tiibingen: Max Niemeyer. Quoted in Caputo. Philosophy is thus : a creative openmindedness .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.