Philosophy: srs or not?

I think most philosophy is playful. People who do it, do it because they either enjoy it or feel called to it. Most because they enjoy it. It is the world's pseudo-intellectual hobby. Although over all it has great effect on culture and world ideologies, on a personal level of individual philosophers it is rarely practical and done for personal enjoyment or personal fulfillment.

I don't think enjoyment is play. I eat food for enjoyment, and not for practical reasons sometimes, but I don't eat it playfully. I might watch 60 minutes or read a non fiction book for enjoyment, but I don't do it playfully. Same with philosophy.



Things aren't either work or play. People enjoy reading and discussing philosophy because they are interested in it. Does that sound like work or like play?

I haven't watched the TED video (unless I saw it a while back and don't remember it) so I don't know how he chose to frame the question. Perhaps he was going for a broader definition of play.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/tim_brown_on_creativity_and_play.html

That link doesn't work for me, this one does though.

A couple minutes in he just said "we fear the judgement of our peers...and that we're embarrassed about showing our ideas...this fear is what causes us to be conservative in our thinking...if you try the same exercise with kids, they have no embarrassment at all...they just happily show their masterpiece to whoever wants to look at it".

That really seems to be purely about artistic design and creativity. I wouldn't doubt that being more carefree and playful is a good thing there...it kind of goes both ways though, you'd hope people at least consider the judgement of their peers. And many people who don't are more ignorant than playful.

Those flippy things are sweet though.

Actually, I think he does have some really interesting things to say, and something to say about how to approach philosophy and other disciplines. Don't know if I'd call it playful, but I'll watch the rest of the video and see.

In the binary choices involved in the OP I assumed play = for enjoyment or from passion and answered accordingly.

Is it a binary choice? I got the idea of the two fused in watching dogs.

I think there's like a mental gymnasium where you can engage in things that don't have any immediate purpose, but strength and flexibility are being produced.

I definitely here what he's saying about being in a "work" frame of mind where we try and quickly fit everything into a conclusion so we have a finished product.

Philosophy on mescaline? lol

"might sound like I'm saying to go out and play like kids, but I'm not, play is not anarchy, play has rules...need to be able to transition in and out of play...in the divergent mode we need to be more playful in the convergent mode we need to be more serious"

hmm, well the 2nd half of his speech went entirely into the design angle. I still don't agree with the use of playful, but his overall point is good. At the start of a philosophical discussion we ought to approach it in an experimental, exploratory, "let's try this idea on for size" kind of way, and not get hung up on flaws in an argument. Those can be hashed out later. But you have to avoid taking a position just because it is the easiest to justify, which is what we are heavily biased towards doing.