Abstract
Videogames are an interesting example of objects that, at least in some cases and prima facie, have a dual nature: they are games, and they are also (better or worse) artworks—more specifically, fictional artworks. Some authors have contested this view. From a Suits-inspired perspective on games that I broadly share, Brock Rough argues that artworks cannot be games. Here I will present a Suits-inspired account of games, and a parallel account of fictional artworks, to uphold the intuitive possibility of hybrid artwork videogames against Rough’s arguments. On the account I’ll offer, both games and artworks are defined by constitutive rules (as in the Wittgensteinian language-games tradition), but there is a different functional account that explains why their defining rules are accepted or enforced. Two distinguishable sets of experiences that we value for their own sake and may fully occupy our attention play a crucial role in that teleological story, aesthetic experiences on the one hand, and lusory experiences on the other. The view allows a reply to Rough’s points by bringing forth other instances of objects that may aim to serve (and succeed fairly well in doing so) the functions of artworks, and other functions in addition—as in architecture or design. The argument will be partially abductive: a main reason to be offered here for the functionalist constitutive rules account of games and artworks will lie in the way it upholds the prima facie plausible intuitive view on (some) videogames in the face of Rough’s arguments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I’ll use ‘rule’ and ‘norm’ interchangeably. As I use these terms, rules are just what “flat-out” directives—typically conditional ones: do Q! (if P)—signify, to echo Williamson’s (1996, p. 246) usage for the case of assertion: the specific force that is indicated in default, literal uses of imperative phrases. “Flat-out” directives are those uttered by someone presumed to have the required authority to make a command, as when I say ‘Eat!’ to my daughter, in contrast with ‘Take it!’ said to give advice, or ‘Keep well!’. Kaufmann (2012) argues that a directive that p is synonymous with an assertion that the addressee should/must make it the case that p. On standard Kratzerian contextualist modal semantics, the obligation is conditional on implicit or explicit features that select accessible worlds and order them. This is implausible (Charlow, 2018, p. 82; Roberts, 2018, p. 331); but I do take directives to entail on illocutionary grounds Kaufman’s assertoric counterparts (Charlow, 2014), and I’ll avail myself of this throughout the paper.
- 2.
Similar characterizations can be found in the literature: according to formalism, “games are a product of their constitutive rules … these rules jointly create and define the game” (Kretchmar, 2015, p. 11); “the essential nature of a game is its rule-set and … proper play involves obeying the rules” (Nguyen, 2017, p. 9).
- 3.
Recent discussion of these issues mostly stems from the deservedly influential work of Kit Fine; cf. Correia (2017) for a good account and further references.
- 4.
They are “Platonic” essences, in the (fitting in this context, see below, fn. 10) terminology of Newman & Knobe (2019), as opposed to “causal” essences like that of water. I thus assume the “generalized essentialism” they argue for. It is controversial that artefacts (as opposed to the superordinate category artefact itself) have explanatory natures, but I am far from being idiosyncratic in thinking that they do have them (Evnine, 2016; Preston, 2020).
- 5.
As I make clear below, Sect. 3, unlike Suits I only aim to vindicate formalism for species-like “lower taxa”—in our context, specific games or specific speech acts. When it comes to genus-like “higher taxa” like game or art in general, or assertion understood as a genus encompassing guesses, conjectures, putting forward propositions for their consideration, and so on, the sort of definition I favor is closer to a nominal, non-explanatory one than a real definition.
- 6.
As a matter of fact, as Searle (1969, p. 36) points out, only the whole set of rules will do. A standard way for formalists embracing FD to react to the counterexamples discussed below is to restrict the claim of constitutivity to a designated set of rules, as it were the “important” or distinctive ones. García-Carpintero (2021) offers reasons to reject this move. See also fn. 13 below and related material in the main text.
- 7.
- 8.
This shows that the constitutive/regulative distinction can only be made relative to particular games. Searle begrudgingly admits as much: casting the rule in the “X counts as Y in context C” mold “is not intended as a formal criterion for distinguishing constitutive and regulative rules. Any regulative rule could be twisted into this form, e.g., ‘Non-wearing of ties at dinner counts as wrong officer behavior’.” But then he goes on to argue that, with some qualifications, the formal criterion would do; cf. García-Carpintero (2021) for critical discussion.
- 9.
Formalism as understood here is thus an ontological view. Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that Williamson is committed to its details; perhaps he doesn’t understand “definition in terms of constitutive rules” in the way I am assuming. In fact, in a quotation I provided above he says that “[c]onstitutive rules do not lay down necessary conditions for performing the constituted act”; but in my view they do, if the defining conditions properly include normative vocabulary. Thanks to Samuele Chilovi and Matthew Kramer.
- 10.
It is also in this sense, I take it, that Newman and Knobe (2019) talk of “Platonic essences” in their defense of the generalized essentialism I am assuming here, see fn. 4 above.
- 11.
Suits (1978, p. 52) suggests a form of “legal positivism/realism”, claiming that a move in a game is illegal if and only if a referee decrees it so. But this is a poorly motivated form of conceptual engineering. It leaves out games played without a referee (Kaluziński, 2018, p. 119). And it assumes a questionable view of what referees do, as Russell (1999) points out; referees also make mistakes, as shown in that their decisions are sometimes overruled.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
Fricker (2017, p. 388) provides a detailed explanation; she shows that both a convention or a social or a moral norm, and a constitutive rule, might well underwrite the very same actually instantiated practice. In Epstein’s (2015, chs. 6–7) ideology, constitutive rules provide real definitions for the kinds they individuate, and they must be grounded (Correia, 2017); in his terms, there must be corresponding “framing principles”. Social norms provide what Epstein calls anchors for kinds that are in force. The external “norms” that explain why practices defined by constitutive norms are in force need not be more than regularities in the behavior of the relevant community, sanctioned by rewards and punishment; this is in fact the way both Lewis and Bicchieri think of them, cf. Hédoin (2015), Guala (2016, chs. 5–6), but see Brennan et al. (2013, ch. 2–4) and Southwood (2019) for a non-reductive alternative that I am sympathetic to.
- 15.
Rough (2018a, 6 fn.) tries to salvage a notion of prelusory goal “separable” from the rules: “The prelusory goal may not always, however, be separable from the institution of the game itself. For instance, checkmate is not a mere configuration of objects in space, but requires the conventions that dictate what moves the pieces can make and what contexts count as checkmate. What makes the prelusory goal separable is that one can still achieve the prelusory goal without following all the rules of the game. Chess serves as an excellent example of this, as learning the game often involves setting up the board, or looking at illustrations of it, in positions that do not start at the beginning, a clear abrogation of the rules, but still follow the rules from there as a way to teach certain principles”. This questionably assumes FD—which Rough indeed holds, as a quote above shows. The whole set of chess rules is needed to define being a checkmate; but they are to be understood in accordance with FN. Rough’s cases don’t pose a problem; the rules are indeed violated, not because of ineptitude or cheating, but for other good reasons; cf. also fn. 18.
- 16.
Martínez (2020) offers a compelling revision of the HPC account.
- 17.
- 18.
The latter case could also be treated along the lines suggested in fn. 13. As a matter of fact, the two accounts are complementary: the cases that Rough puts forward are chess in the historical sense, and they are also chess as defined by the current FIDE rules when this is understood in accordance with FN; the rules are not being fully obeyed, for good reasons.
- 19.
Changes are “small” relative to the preservation of the distinctive “lusory means” that the game affords, allowing for distinctive lusory experiences vis-à-vis those afforded by other historically defined good games, kept in existence because of that. See below for elaboration.
- 20.
- 21.
Cf., e.g., Lind (1992). To be fully candid, I have to confess that I would find it utterly impossible to understand—alien—the behavior of someone who would be prepared to incur the costs I am to enjoy a celebrated new production of Strauss’ Rosenkavalier, or a once-in-a-lifetime Giorgione, Vermeer, or Caravaggio exhibition, for the sake of being exposed for a second time to Rauschenberg’s painting, or Cage’s piece—whether or not the accidental sounds made by the audience in the performance are part of it, cf. Dodd (2018).
- 22.
Of course, there is a long tradition of appealing to an aesthetic attitude in characterizing artworks, from Kant to Stolnitz and Scruton, cf. King (2012). The Suits-inspired role it plays in the present account makes it differ importantly from the way King defines it. It thus withstands the objections aptly discussed by Kemp (1999), taking up Kemp’s demand that the discussion of its nature be placed “in the context of a suitably rich theoretical atmosphere” (ibid., p. 399).
- 23.
I am assuming the now standard Dancy-Raz take on normative and explanatory reasons; cf. Álvarez (2017). I think of functions along the etiological lines nicely articulated by Eaton (2020). On the view I am outlining, the etiology determining proper function and proper conditions for function fulfilment is afforded by the account of how the constitutive norms defining the artefact (the artwork) have come to be in place or accepted; cf. Thomasson (2014). As Eaton points out, this allows for artworks to be answerable to the relevant norms even when their makers lack the intentions to yield to them: individuals may be obligated by norms even when they lack such intentions, for different reasons. However, the normative reasons that I am assuming artworks should provide are meant, in prototypical cases, to be owned by, possessed by, or available to artwork producers and their audiences; I take it that a form of “moderate intentionalism” (Livingston, 2005) about proper interpretation (i.e., “Does Mean” interpretation, as opposed to “Could Mean” interpretation, Levinson, 1998) follows from this.
- 24.
Although I agree with Gorodeisky and Marcus (2018) that successful artworks provide normative reasons for an attitude, my view of the aesthetic experience is much closer to the one nicely articulated by Goffin (2019)—and the more general view of pleasant feelings developed by Aydede (2018). I sharply distinguish aesthetic experiences from the aesthetic judgments they may ground and justify; for the judgment can occur without the experience, as the experience can occur without the judgment. (My take on the related debate about aesthetic testimony is close to Franzén’s (2018)). And, while I agree with Gorodeisky and Marcus (2018) and Gorodeisky (2019)—and Kant—that we intuitively take aesthetic experiences to make claims of necessity and universalizability, I think we have good theoretical reasons to resist them, and to embrace a form of (contextualist) relativism (Marques & García-Carpintero, 2014).
- 25.
This paragraph was motivated by an illuminating exchange with Kendall Walton. The point in the text is compatible with the metasemantics allowing for some “value-maximizing” elements in Does Mean interpretation; for instance, to allow for a flat-out assertion of ‘the vote was unanimous’ to say that the vote was anonymous when the malapropism is sufficiently manifest (Unnsteinsson, 2017); or to allow the application of (FR) to Fritz Lang’s 1937 You Only Live Once to be made relative to George Wilson’s (1986, ch. 2) non-obvious (but to a very great extent upheld by clues in the film) interpretation, as opposed to the sentimental standard one.
- 26.
In a similar vein, Juul (2005, p. 226) states that a “game has been designed to be entertaining when one pursues the goal” (thanks to Aarón Álvarez and Alfonso García for the reference). This goal is what rules like the “12 Tenets of Board Game Design for Stonemaier Games”, https://stonemaiergames.com/about/mission-statement/, transparently aim to secure.
- 27.
A referee asked how to locate my discussion in the long debate in the literature on games on the distinction traced in English (but not in Spanish and other languages) between ‘game’ and ‘play’. It is generally granted that the latter has a wider use than the one at stake here (cf. Aarseth, 2014; Clément, 2014). For my purposes, ‘game’ refers to the abstract object defined by constitutive rules, ‘play’ to the activity of engaging it with the lusory attitude.
- 28.
I’d like to note here the most significant difference between my views on fiction and Kendall Walton’s, in many ways the closest to my views and certainly the one that has been most influential in developing them. As elaborated in Chap. 2 of Walton (1990) and the earlier works that it crystallizes, Walton famously assimilates fictional artworks to make-believe games, and other categories including daydreams, and even dreams; Corbí (2020) identifies social rituals, and Stock (2021, ch. 6) legal fictions, and legal-fiction-like gender classifications, as other examples in the category that Walton calls “representations”—items that can be seen as having the prop-facilitated function of prescribing imaginings. Accordingly, Walton (2015a) takes sport games to be fictions. Now, I don’t have any qualms in acknowledging Walton’s ontological category, or its significance. However, as commentators have pointed out (Friend, 2008, pp. 152–154; Woodward, 2014, p. 825), Walton is dismissive of the narrower category that, say, Searle (1974–1975) or Currie (1990) were trying to account for—which is, I take it, that of fictional artworks. This cannot be explained in terms of the blanket notion of prescriptions to imagine, as Walton (2015b) now acknowledges; but as García-Carpintero (2019) shows, it can be along the lines outlined here. And it differs from games for the reasons given in the main text; as Walton (2015a, p. 80) himself points out, “even in the case of spectator sports like professional baseball games and track meets, no one arranges the events of the game to best advantage for appreciation—at least no one is supposed to. The participants play to win, not to put on a good show”.
- 29.
My references in Sect. 2 acknowledge how close my views on games are to Mike Ridge’s. Unsurprisingly, his response to Rough (Ridge, 2018) is also similar to mine. However, I grant more to Rough than he does. I grant Rough the hylomorphism, which Ridge objects to as leading to a “bloated ontology”, p. 8—something that doesn’t worry me in the least. More importantly, I think of both games and artworks as (in the primary sense of the terms for the relevant kinds) constituted by rules, along similar lines to Rough. This is why my own objections stand in the face of Rough’s (2018b) brief dismissal of Ridge’s objections.
References
Aarseth, E. (2014). Ontology. In M. J. P. Wolf & B. Perron (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Video Game Studies (pp. 484–492). Routledge.
Álvarez, M. (2017): Reasons for Action: Justification, Motivation, Explanation. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/reasons-just-vs-expl/
Aydede, M. (2018). A Contemporary Account of Sensory Pleasure. In L. Shapiro (Ed.), Pleasure: a History. Oxford University Press.
Beardsley, M. (1969). Aesthetic Experience Regained. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 28, 3–11.
Berman, M. (2013). Sprints, Sports, and Suits. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 40, 163–176.
Bicchieri, C. (2006). The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms. CUP.
Bird, A., & Tobin, E. (2018). Natural Kinds. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/natural-kinds/
Black, M. (1962). The Analysis of Rules. In Models and Metaphors (pp. 95–139). Cornell University Press.
Boyd, R. (1999). Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa. In R. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays (pp. 141–185). MIT Press.
Brennan, G., Eriksson, L., Goodin, R., & Southwood, N. (2013). Explaining Norms. Oxford University Press.
Broome, J. (2013). Rationality Through Reasoning. Wiley Blackwell.
Budd, M. (2007). Aesthetic Essence. In R. Shusterman & A. Tomlin (Eds.), The Value of Aesthetic Experience (pp. 17–30). Routledge.
Carroll, N. (2012). Recent Approaches to Aesthetic Experience. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 70(2), 165–177.
Carroll, N. (2016). Art Appreciation. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 50(4), 1–14.
Charlow, N. (2014). The Meaning of Imperatives. Philosophy Compass, 9(8), 540–555.
Charlow, N. (2018). Clause-Type, Force, and Normative Judgment in the Semantics of Imperatives. In D. Fogal, D. Harris, & M. Moss (Eds.), New Work in Speech Acts (pp. 67–98). OUP.
Clément, F. (2014). Players/Gamers. In M. J. P. Wolf & B. Perron (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Video Game Studies (pp. 197–203). Routledge.
Consalvo, M. (2014). Cheating. In M. J. P. Wolf & B. Perron (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Video Game Studies (pp. 150–157). Routledge.
Corbí, J. E. (2020). A Family Meal as Fiction. Organon F, 27(1), 82–105.
Correia, F. (2017). Real Definitions. Philosophical Issues, 27, 52–73.
Currie, G. (1990). The Nature of Fiction. Cambridge University Press.
Currie, G. (1991). Work and Text. Mind, 100, 325–340.
D’Agostino, F. (1981). The Ethos of Games. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 8, 7–18.
Dewey, J. (1958). Art as Experience. Capricon.
Dodd, J. (2018). What 4’ 33” Is. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 96(4), 629–641.
Eaton, A. (2020). Artifacts and Their Functions. In I. Gaskell & S. A. Carter (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of History and Material Culture. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199341764.013.26
Ellis, J. (2011). On the Concept of a Game. Philosophical Investigations, 34, 381–391.
Epstein, B. (2015). The Ant Trap. OUP.
Ereshefsky, M. (2017): Species. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/species/
Evnine, S. (2013). Ready-Mades: Ontology and Aesthetics. British Journal of Aesthetics, 53(4), 407–423.
Evnine, S. (2016). Making Objects and Events. Oxford University Press.
Falkum, I., & Vicente, A. (2015). Polysemy: Current Perspectives and Approaches. Lingua, 157, 1–16.
Fine, K. (2017). Form. Journal of Philosophy, 114, 509–535.
Franklin-Hall, L. (2021). The Animal Sexes as Explanatory Kinds. In S. Dasgupta, R. Dotan, & B. Weslake (Eds.), Current Controversies in Philosophy of Science (pp. 177–197). Routledge.
Franssen, M. (2009). Artefacts and Normativity. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences (Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Volume 9) (pp. 923–952). Elsevier.
Franzén, N. (2018). Aesthetic Evaluation & First-Hand Experience. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 96(4), 669–682.
Fricker, E. (2017). Norms, Constitutive and Social, and Assertion. American Philosophical Quarterly, 54(4), 397–418.
Friend, S. (2008). Imagining Fact and Fiction. In K. Stock & K. Thomson-Jones (Eds.), New Waves in Aesthetics (pp. 150–169). Palgrave Macmillan.
Friend, S. (2012). Fiction as a Genre. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 92, 179–208.
García-Carpintero, M. (2021). How to Understand Rule-Constituted Kinds. Review of Philosophy and Psychology.
García-Carpintero, M. (2021a). Metasemantics: A Normative Perspective (and the Case of Mood). In P. Stalmaszczyk (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Philosophy of Language (pp. 401–418). CUP.
García-Carpintero, M. (2021b). Documentaries and the Fiction/Nonfiction Divide. Studies in Documentary Film. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503280.2021.1923146
García-Carpintero, M. (2011). A Genealogical Notion. Teorema, 30, 43–52.
García-Carpintero, M. (2013). Norms of Fiction-Making. British Journal of Aesthetics, 53, 339–357.
García-Carpintero, M. (2019). Normative Fiction-Making and the World of the Fiction. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 77(3), 267–279.
Gaut, B. (2007). Art, Emotions and Ethics. OUP.
Geras, N. (2009). Games and Meanings. In S. De Wijze et al. (Eds.), Hillel Steiner and the Anatomy of Justice: Themes and Challenges. Routledge.
Glüer, K., & Pagin, P. (1999). Rules of meaning and Practical Reasoning. Synthese, 117, 207–227.
Goffin, K. (2019). The Affective Experience of Aesthetic Properties. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 100, 283–300.
Goldberg, S. (2015). Assertion. OUP.
Goldman, A. (2013). The Broad View of Aesthetic Experience. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 71(4), 323–333.
Gorodeisky, K. (2019). The Authority of Pleasure. Noûs online first. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12310
Gorodeisky, K., & Marcus, E. (2018). Aesthetic Rationality. Journal of Philosophy, 115(3), 113–140.
Graham, P. J. (2019). The Function of Assertion and Social Norms. In S. Goldberg (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Assertion. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190675233.013.30
Guala, F., & Hindriks, F. (2015). A Unified Social Ontology. Philosophical Quarterly, 65, 177–201.
Guala, F. (2016). Understanding Institutions. Princeton U.P.
Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The Concept of Law. Clarendon.
Hédoin, C. (2015). Accounting for Constitutive Rules in Game Theory. Journal of Economic Methodology, 22, 439–461.
Hinchman, E. (2019). Assertion and Testimony. In S. Goldberg (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Assertion. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190675233.013.23
Hindriks, F. (2009). Constitutive Rules, Language, and Ontology. Erkenntnis, 71, 253–275.
Iseminger, G. (2006). The Aesthetic State of Mind. In M. Kieran & D. M. I. Lopes (Eds.), Knowing Art: Essays in Aesthetics and Epistemology (pp. 98–110). Springer.
Jacobson, D. (2011). Fitting Attitude Theories of Value. In, E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/fitting-attitude-theories/
Jankovic, M. (2018). Collective Intentionality and Language. In M. Jankovic & K. Ludwig (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intentionality (pp. 363–377). Routledge.
Johnson, C. R. (2018). What Norm of Assertion? Acta Analytica, 33, 51–67.
Juul, J. (2005). Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. MIT Press.
Kaluziński, B. (2018). What Does it Mean that Constitutive Rules Are in Force? Argumenta, 4(1), 111–124.
Kaplan, J. (2021). Attitude and Social Rules, or Why It’s Okay to Slurp Your Soup. Philosophers’ Imprint.
Kaufmann, M. (2012). Interpreting Imperatives. Springer.
Kemp, G. (1999). The Aesthetic Attitude. British Journal of Aesthetics, 39, 392–399.
Kennedy, C. (2007). Vagueness and Grammar: The Semantics of Relative and Absolute Gradable Predicates. Linguistic and Philosophy, 30(1), 1–45.
Khalidi, M. A. (2021). Are Sexes Natural Kinds? In S. Dasgupta, R. Dotan, & B. Weslake (Eds.), Current Controversies in Philosophy of Science (pp. 163–176). Routledge.
King, A. (2012). The Aesthetic Attitude. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Kivy, P. (2011). Once-told Tales. Blackwell.
König, E., & Siemund, P. (2007). Speech Act Distinctions in Grammar. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Semantic Description (pp. 276–324). Cambridge University Press.
Kreider, A. J. (2011). Game Playing Without Rule-Following. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 38, 55–73.
Kretchmar, S. (2001). A Functionalist Analysis of Game Acts: Revisiting Searle. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 28, 160–172.
Kretchmar, S. (2015). Formalism and Sport. In M. McNamee & W. Morgan (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Sports (pp. 11–21). Routledge.
Lehman, C. K. (1981). Can Cheaters Play the Game? Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 8, 41–46.
Levinson, J. (1998). Two Notions of Interpretation. In A. Haapala & O. Naukkarinen (eds.), Interpretation and its Boundaries (pp. 2–21). Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Also in his Contemplating Art, Oxford: OUP 2006, 275–287.
Levinson, J. (2016). Toward an Adequate Conception of Aesthetic Experience. In Aesthetic Pursuits (pp. 28–46). Oxford University Press.
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a Language Game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 339–359; in Lewis, D. (1983). Philosophical Papers (Vol. 1, pp. 233–249), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, D. (1969). Convention: A Philosophical Study. Harvard U.P.
Lewis, D. (1983). New Work for a Theory of Universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61, 343–377.
Lind, R. (1980). Attention and the Aesthetic Object. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 39(2), 131–142.
Lind, R. (1992). The Aesthetic Essence of Art. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 50(2), 117–129.
Livingston, P. (2005). Art and Intention. Oxford University Press.
Longworth, F., & Scarantino, A. (2010). The Disjunctive Theory of Art: The Cluster Account Reformulated. British Journal of Aesthetics, 50(2), 151–167.
Maitra, I. (2011). Assertion, Norms, and Games. In J. Brown & H. Cappelen (Eds.), Assertion: New Philosophical Essays (pp. 277–295). Oxford University Press.
Marques, T., & García-Carpintero, M. (2014). Disagreement about taste: commonality presuppositions and coordination. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 72(4), 701–723.
Martínez, M. (2020). Synergic Kinds. Synthese, 197, 1931–1946.
Matthen, M. (2017). The Pleasure of Art. Australasian Philosophical Review, 1(1), 6–28.
McPherson, T. (2011). Against Quietist Normative Realism. Philosophical Studies, 154(2), 223–240.
Midgley, G. C. J. (1959). Linguistic Rules. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 59, 271–290.
Miller, R. (1998). Three Versions of Objectivity: Aesthetic, Moral, and Scientific. In J. Levinson (Ed.), Aesthetics and Ethics: Essays at the Intersection (pp. 26–59). Cambridge U.P.
Morgan, W. J. (1987). The Logical Incompatibility Thesis and Rules: A Reconsideration of Formalism as an Account of Games. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 14, 1–20.
Morgan, W. J. (2004). Moral Antirealism, Internalism, and Sport. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 31, 161–183.
Morin, O. (2011). Three Ways of Misunderstanding the Power of Rules. In M. Schmitz, B. Kobow, & H.-B. Schmidt (Eds.), The Background of Social Reality (pp. 185–201). Springer.
Newman, G., & Knobe, J. (2019). The Essence of Essentialism. Mind and Language. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12226
Nguyen, C. T. (2017). Philosophy of Games. Philosophy Compass. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12426
Preston, B. (2020). Artifact. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/artifact/
Putnam, H. (1975). The Meaning of ‘Meaning’. In Philosophical Papers vol. 2 (pp. 215–271). Cambridge U.P..
Ransdell, J. (1971). Constitutive Rules and Speech-Act Analysis. Journal of Philosophy, lxviii, 385–400.
Rawls, J. (1955). Two Concepts of Rules. The Philosophical Review, 64, 3–32.
Reiland, I. (2020). Constitutive Rules: Games, Language, and Assertion. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 100(1), 136–159.
Rescorla, M. (2009). Assertion and its Constitutive Norms. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 79(1), 98–130.
Ridge, M. (2017). Play and Games: An Opinionated Introduction. Philosophy Compass. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12573
Ridge, M. (2018). The Compatibility of Games and Artworks. Journal of the Philosophy of Games, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.5617/jpg.5915
Ridge, M. (2020). Individuating Games. Synthese, online first. https://doi.org/10.1007//s11229-020-02603-5
Ridge, M. (2019). How to Play Well with Others. In T. Hurka (Ed.), Games, Sports, and Play: Philosophical Essays (pp. 74–97). Oxford University Press.
Roberts, C. (2018). Speech Acts in Discourse Contexts. In D. Fogal, D. Harris, & M. Moss (Eds.), New Work in Speech Acts (pp. 317–359). OUP.
Rough, B. (2018a). The Incompatibility of Games and Artworks. Journal of the Philosophy of Games, 1(1), 1–21.
Rough, B. (2018b). Response to Michael Ridge. Journal of the Philosophy of Games, 1(1), 1–3.
Russell, J. S. (1999). Are Rules All an Umpire Has to Work With? Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 26, 27–49.
Russell, J. S. (2004). Moral Realism in Sport. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 31(1), 142–160.
Scruton, R. (1974). Art and Imagination. Routledge.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge U.P.
Searle, J. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. Free Press.
Searle, J. R. (1974–1975). The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse. New Literary History, 6, 319–32; also in his Expression and Meaning, Cambridge: CUP, 1979, 58–75.
Searle, J. R. (2018). Constitutive Rules. Argumenta, 4(1), 51–54.
Simon, R. L. (2000). Internalism and Internal Values in Sport. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 27, 1–16.
Southwood, N. (2019). Laws as Conventional Norms. In D. Plunkett, S. Shapiro, & K. Toh (Eds.), Dimensions of Normativity (pp. 23–44). Oxford University Press.
Stecker, R. (2010). Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
Stock, K. (2021). Material Girl: Why Reality Matters for Feminism. Fleet, Little Brown.
Suits, B. (1978). The Grasshopper: Games, life and Utopia. Scottish Academic Press; reissued in 2005, Canada: Broadview Press.
Suits, B. (1967). What is a Game? Philosophy of Science, 34(2), 148–156.
Thomasson, A. L. (1999). Fiction and Metaphysics. Cambridge U.P.
Thomasson, A. L. (2014). Public Artifacts, Intentions and Norms. In M. Franssen, P. Kroes, T. Reydon, P. Vermaas, et al. (Eds.), Artefact Kinds: Ontology and the Human-made World. Springer.
Tobia, K., Newman, G., & Knobe, J. (2020). Water Is and Is Not H2O. Mind and Language 35, 183-208
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions. Cambridge University Press.
Unnsteinsson, E. (2017). A Gricean Theory of Malaprops. Mind and Language, 32(4), 446–462.
Walton, K. (1990). Mimesis and Make-Believe. Harvard U.P.
Walton, K. (1993). How Marvelous! Toward a Theory of Aesthetic Value. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 51(3), 499–510.
Walton, K. (2015a). ‘It’s Only a Game!’: Sports as Fiction. In In Other Shoes: Music, Metaphor, Empathy, Existence (pp. 77–83). Oxford University Press.
Walton, K. (2015b). Fictionality and Imagination—Mind the Gap. In In Other Shoes: Music, Metaphor, Empathy, Existence (pp. 17–35). Oxford University Press.
Williamson, T. (1996/2000). Knowing and Asserting. Philosophical Review, 105, 489–523; chapter 11 of his Knowledge and Its Limits, New York: Oxford U.P., 2000.
Wilson, G. (1986). Narration in Light. The John Hopkins University Press.
Woodward, R. (2014). Walton on Fictionality. Philosophy Compass, 9(12), 825–836.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
García-Carpintero, M. (2022). Games, Artworks, and Hybrids. In: Terrone, E., Tripodi, V. (eds) Being and Value in Technology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88793-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88793-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-88792-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-88793-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)