Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.
Loading... Finite and Infinite Games (original 1986; edition 2013)by James Carse (Author)https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Finite_and_Infinite_Games If there is one thing to take from this article, please make it this: read James P. Carse’s magnificently aphoristic Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility and at all costs go out of your way to avoid Simon Sinek’s thoroughly wretched adaptation, The Infinite Game. An extremely abstract, existential modernist philosophical text providing some broadly applicable ontological categories for human activity. It's certainly a way to think about the world and your place in it. There are a lot of "weird" assertions in here, and certainly some uncomfortable and questionable ones. This was definitely a worthwhile read. In fact, I should read a second time before reviewing. That said, I found the opening premise quite interesting, and some of the expansion on it quite worthwhile. But... frankly, I did not follow everything here. I think part of it is that I'm not sure I agree with all of it. I don't know that infinite players are actually 'better', and that is clearly the judgement expressed. A sincere religious fundamentalist seems an infinite player; so does a sincere terrorist. Though Carse clearly would not agree, I think a 'true believe' in almost any thing would fit... even though embracers of ideology are called out here. Yeah... disagree on points AND need to reread. wouldnt wish this on my worst enemy. this book peaked at the first sentence and steadily regressed until i wanted to kill myself by the last word. i would rather puncture my eyes than read this ever again. or blow my brains out than think of its contents. there are like 5 interesting tidbidts--which are only interesting relative to the garbage that surrounds them--that i wish this author (if i can call him that! his title should be revoked!) had just listed in bullet points along with the first sentence (which again, was the book's strongest point). an interesting subject gone terribly wrong. 0/5. if you saw any value in this book i worry for you. The core of this book is to differentiate finite games, that has an end, from infinite games, that is just for playing. The author makes the point that infinite games are better and less paradoxical. I associate the talk with the teal thoughts on building better organizations. I also think of the book [b:This Life: Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom|35969561|This Life Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom|Martin Hägglund|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1541968760l/35969561._SY75_.jpg|57532947] wish talks on similar matters, but the fact that we are finite is the reason why we can be and do good. Somehow I see these thoughts reaching out and connecting in my head. We are finite beings taking part in an infinite game. I think this book will give me more insights on a second read. I find it very difficult to rate this book, hence the wishy-washy 3 stars. It is certainly unusual and thought-provoking. Its utility seems likely to vary wildly depending on the person reading it. I could have wished for a different title -- it's a meandering stream of philosophical questions, nothing to do with games as commonly defined -- but I don't regret the read. to-read, on the strength of this recommendation: http://www.alexsteffen.com/2012/10/finite-and-infinite-games/ to-read, on the strength of this recommendation: http://www.alexsteffen.com/2012/10/finite-and-infinite-games/ Many people talk about how this book helped them learn about themselves. I have to agree; this book taught me something about myself. But what it taught me is apparently quite different than the lessons others have learned. What I learned about myself is that I have little tolerance for the minutia and excruciating details of this kind of meaningless philosophical discussion. It is not that I do not understand the value of philosophies, or how they shape our thinking. But, from my perspective, the detailed drivellings contained in this book served no purpose other than to help me see that a deep-dive into senseless word explorations and mindless details provided nothing but a cure for insomnia, except for those times my blood pressure rose when I realized how much time I was wasting on this book. At the end of it all, I left with this one thought. Why? Why did I care about any of this? What did it have to do with my life? Where is the (look out for this word) practical application? Again, I understand that philosophy is not always about the practical. But, at the very least, there should be a practicality in challenging or changing the way we think about things. I did not see anything profound, I did not find anything that altered my perceptions, and it did not change me. if this works for you – good on you; but, for me, the only change was realizing the waste of time inherent in philosophical extrapolations gone wild. This is a wonderful - must read - book, beautifully writen in a simple and clear style and yet its simplicity provides a profound insight into life as seen through a perspective of an infinite game or a finite game. For instance in finite games players play in the boundaries, but to play an infinite game we must play with the boundaris. I heard of the book from reading Kevin Kelly's list of the 10 books that most changed his thinking and this was one of the book that I had not read. I loved this book so much I bought 10 copies and gave them away to people I thought would truly appreciate this simple and yet profound perspective. "There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play." ~~back cover I read a trade paperback, with this ISBN & cover. I've had this book for 20 years or more, and every time I read it, I get more out of it. It's not an easy book to read -- it takes a lot of thought to begin to understand the author's meaning. But it's well worth the effort! I first read this book when my metaphor for living was 'to be in the world as a warrior', and this book drove me to understand that metaphor is an infinite game. “Finite Players play within boundaries; infinite players play with boundaries. Finite players are serious; infinite games are playful. A finite player plays to be powerful; an infinite player plays with strength. A finite player consumes time; an infinite player generates time. The finite player aims for eternal life; the infinite player aims for eternal birth.” Carse starts by defining two kinds of games: finite and infinite. The basic difference between the two is that finite games are played for the purpose of establishing a winner and ending the game while infinite games are played for the purpose of making sure play continues without ending. He goes on to apply this metaphor to many aspects of life, including business, religion, society and culture, war, sex, and nature. I struggled with deciding how to rate this book. I was convinced that it would be a five star book and a favorite within the first few pages, and I had post-it notes stuck all over it marking passages I wanted to go back to. Then as I got further into it, there were more and more sections that either confused me or didn’t resonate with me at all. There were still quite a few wonderful tidbits interspersed throughout, so I was waffling between four and five stars. Then I got to the ending, which I really did not appreciate, so the four star rating turned out to be an easy decision. What I did appreciate was that Carse spent the whole book explaining the differences between finite and infinite games and players without casting any judgment about which is better. Regardless of my dislike of the ending, it’s still an excellent book, and I can see why many people have said that it changed their whole outlook on life. This is a book that I will go back to multiple times throughout my life. And yes, I am completely aware of and thoroughly amused by the fact that I just read a book about playing games as part of playing a game. At the risk of making this review so long that no one wants to read it, have some quotes: “What will undo any boundary is the awareness that it is our vision, and not what we are viewing, that is limited.” “Each new school of painting is new not because it now contains subject matter ignored in earlier work, but because it sees the limitations previous artists imposed on their subject matter but could not see themselves. The earlier artists worked within the outlines they imagined; the later reworked their imaginations.” “Genuine travel has no destination. Travelers do not go somewhere, but constantly discover they are somewhere else.” This little book is, not to put too fine a point on it, predominantly twaddle. It is good for an aphorism here and there; e.g., “Power is never one’s own” (§27). It’s potentially a tolerable source of inspiration. But if you want to read something true, I’m not sure there’s much here for you. I’ve read some people say that in encountering Carse in Finite and Infinite Games, they encountered a thinker who anticipated their own pre-philosophical beliefs and thought processes. I sincerely hope that this is false. I would hope—naively, I suppose—that it would take lots of philosophy to confuse oneself so thoroughly. Some other reviewers have taken issue with Carse’s use of loaded words. Maybe this criticism is fair, but it didn’t bother me. The word “genius,” for instance, has meanings that these reviewers fail to account for. “Finite” and “infinite” needn’t be value judgments, and besides, I find it difficult to read Carse as implying that all finite games are ruinous, though many, he thinks, clearly are. The word “garden” opposed to the word “machine”? Alright, that’s over the top. But really, Carse’s intentions are so ill-expressed that even if you find yourself tricked by his loaded language into assenting, you would still be hard pressed to articulate exactly what proposition it is that you’ve assented to. So it’s a wash. I did find it somewhat refreshing to read an author confronting the incongruities at the heart of identity and society (especially modern society) in a tone that was neither histrionic, nor ironic, nor scientific. Those sometimes seem to be the only tones we have left for discussing serious issues, and in a lot of cases, they can’t quite carry the weight. Carse’s style, loosely described, is existential—when it does connect, it connects in the way that poetry does, obliquely, and with a lot of meaning to unpack. E.g., “We persuade ourselves that, comfortably seated behind the wheels of our autos, shielded from every unpleasant change of weather, and raising and lowering our foot an inch or two, we have actually traveled somewhere” (§85). Maybe not the best example I could have selected. Still, I think that in this and a few other places, even as your mind revolts—this isn’t philosophy!—you may begin to feel as if you’ve been shaken awake, which is a good thing. In the end, there is something valuable about being reminded, as Carse repeatedly does, that the roles one plays in life are voluntary; they can be shrugged off if they begin to chafe. The awareness of that freedom might lead you to undertake an existing role with renewed joy, or to reject it and find a new one that you can relish. Any budding ninth-grade philosopher could tell you that if you caught her after the right assembly, but it’s clear too that we sometimes need reminding. Too much unhappiness in the world is caused by the undue gravity that people assign to what are ultimately contingent labels—both those they apply to themselves and those that are applied to others. If I thought that Finite and Infinite Games stood a chance in hell of changing that, I’d hold my nose and recommend it highly. Carse has a bias, does use loaded words. Then, there is his concept of being able to walk off the playing field rather than engaging in a "game." Each person can get conscious of whether the relationship is finite or infinite, whether there are winners and losers, or only winners. Consciousness and choise make the difference. Continually pushing my personal horizons, Carse reminds me of what I often choose to forget: that everything of importance is rooted in personal choice, and that choice and joy are inseparably connected.It is daunting to write a review of a book that almost causally overturns much of the conventional view of society and its attendant honors. Yet that very self-consciousness is a reminder that genuine communication is only achieved through vulnerability. A kind of of wild freedom, impossible to capture in simple text, nevertheless hovers just outside the edges of this book. It incites without compulsion and cuts without malice. It sings, stings, worrys, gnaws, and finally sleeps. It doesn't care what you do, but only the withered in spirit can be left unchanged.The writing is straight-forward and unadorned (though it may rely a bit too much on chiasmus at times). The thoughts are succinct, but require consideration before they come easily. Of the four books I read in one three-week period, this was the shortest and took the longest to finish. I actually think I bought this book when it first came out when I was around 14. When I first read it thru gulping it like water I thought to myself this is so obvious, this is how I think. Typical teenage know it all response. But after a couple of months I realized it had changed the way I thought and interacted with people. Truly life changing for me at 14. This book was like being cornered by that annoying, extremely arrogant philosophy major slash persistent pothead we all knew in college that would corner people at parties and drone on and on about how there's all sorts of levels to, like, humanity and stuff, and how, like, we just, like, don't even, like, realize, man; and, that he has it figured out and he is better than the lot of us for it. Carse builds his life philosophy on a foundation of redefined, loaded words that describe a black and white world masquerading as a world in shades of grey; and, he uses his loaded words to clearly describe himself as infinite (superior) and others as finite (inferior). He speaks of the overlap (a finite game can be played within an infinite one); but, he describes the two in opposite terms (according to what he has decided these words mean). The words that he chooses to redefine are words that already have definition and connotation in our world. Instead of finding a word that better describes his philosophy in a neutral manner or, better yet, coining a phrase with no connotation based on his concepts and a logical etymology, he chooses words that do not entirely describe what he is describing so that he can imply a value to it. Infinite vs. finite is a clear example of his use of loaded words. Who among us would choose finite over infinite? None. Of course, that example might just be too obvious. I can hear people thinking, "that’s the point." There are other examples, such as machine vs. garden, resonance vs. amplification, etc. These are loaded phrases that he uses to show the superiority of his world view. They are phrases that he, then, ties himself to specifically, and then fills in behind with his beliefs. It leads us to, not only, see his argument as obviously superior (of course infinite is better than finite...), then, also, leads us to see him as superior (someone who has chosen infinite over finite is better than those that choose otherwise...); but, it also leads us to either ignore or elevate dubious arguments that fall in behind it. For those that would say that Carse doesn't apply the infinite to himself specifically, re-read it and note that he will refer to "finite players" and "finite games"; but, then, he often says "when I am playing in an infinite game..." or "as an infinite player I do this...", not to mention the whole "I am a genius" section. Once we have accepted his superiority, we are not skeptical of what he says behind it. His view has a fundamental lack of practicality to it, a distinct naïveté and, in at least one case, makes excuse for malice. Finite games, in his implication, could and should be entirely eliminated. With finite games eliminated, we would live in peace, fostering culture and creation, expecting the unexpected and fostering the perpetuation of surprise, and everyone would help all in a world of total harmony with each other and nature. This world view ignores fundamentals of human nature, and of the human psyche. It is a view that assumes that all are capable of this transcendence and that transcendence will always take this form. There was, a point at which I found him throwing a malicious act into a list of "infinite" acts of play: adultery. One might call me a fuddy-duddy; but, while I understand that we are better off than the days when adultery was criminal and stoneable sin, I also understand that adultery is a negligent (at its very best) or malicious (often and at its worst) act that should not be added to a list of benign sexual terms such as celibacy and homosexuality. He says you cannot call an infinite player adulterous because it is a concept that requires boundaries; but, infinite players are not concerned with boundaries. If his world view allows for, what I would consider, a malicious act, then what other ideals does this world view hide that is unspoken? Is there no value to maintaining, at least, some order over anarchy? In that lies a great deal of his naïveté. Again, like the jerk we all knew in college, he banters about all the "freedoms" that we would have with transcendence, but ignores the effect on others. Others, thus, are either obliged to come to the same transcendence, or, they must (therefore: deserve to) suffer the acts of the enlightened. In a sense, this is the urban-spiritualist version of Stalin's Soviet Union: "Be enlightened, or get out of the way." Of course, this book is packaged nicer than a Siberian gulag, so we don't fear it. I made a promise to myself a few years ago that I would finish the books that I started to read. I used to read a few chapters and then drop them. I wanted to see things through. Within those few years, I have read some really, really horrible stuff: stuff that no one should ever read. I persevered, though, and had no regrets. I was following through. After reading this book, I have concluded that my promise was the promise of a fool. I would not wish this book on my worst enemy. It is some of the worst hippie, urban-spiritualist, arrogant, catch-phrasey, pop philosophy bull$#!+ that I have ever read in my life. I should have known that it was going to be a horrible book when I saw that an “in praise of” quote on the back was written by Robert Pirsig. If a book ever corners me and talks my ear off like this again, I will have the infinite wisdom to put it the hell down. This is a book everyone should read! It's extraordinary. It will alter the way you play the game of life. It will allow you to see possibilities you never saw before. It's not an easy read--it takes real concentration to get it. But if I can get it, then you can too. What I hope people get is that when we play the game of life competitively, we're all doomed. We all lose. Hey folks, we're all on the same team here on this planet! Do we want the human race to continue? |
Current DiscussionsNonePopular covers
Google Books — Loading... GenresMelvil Decimal System (DDC)110Philosophy and Psychology Metaphysics MetaphysicsLC ClassificationRatingAverage:
Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. |
What I learned about myself is that I have little tolerance for the minutia and excruciating details of this kind of meaningless philosophical discussion.
It is not that I do not understand the value of philosophies, or how they shape our thinking. But, from my perspective, the detailed drivellings contained in this book served no purpose other than to help me see that a deep-dive into senseless word explorations and mindless details provided nothing but a cure for insomnia, except for those times my blood pressure rose when I realized how much time I was wasting on this book.
At the end of it all, I left with this one thought. Why? Why did I care about any of this? What did it have to do with my life? Where is the (look out for this word) practical application?
Again, I understand that philosophy is not always about the practical. But, at the very least, there should be a practicality in challenging or changing the way we think about things. I did not see anything profound, I did not find anything that altered my perceptions, and it did not change me.
if this works for you – good on you; but, for me, the only change was realizing the waste of time inherent in philosophical extrapolations gone wild. ( )