Abstract

The peculiarities of understanding of the game in the J.Huizinga «Homo ludens» are revealed. Attention is focused on the discovery of the scattered game essence by J.Huizinga who gives his answer to the question of how society and the socium have game character. The author dwells on the understanding of J. Huizinga’s game space, which is not limited to understanding of the game as a source of culture, and applies to science, life, etc. The basic idea revolves around the search for an answer to the question: «What is the essence of the concept of the game and what are the forms of its manifestation? ‘. The author tries to show that the understanding of the game, which was offered by J. Huizinga, beyond the place prepared for her philosopher border. In particular, aspects of the game as a language understanding of the game. Logical connection is built between the understanding of the J. Huizinga’s game and representatives of the postmodern in the face of L.Wittgenstein, N.Lumana and E. Berne. This connection transition is possible by focusing on the fact that postmodernists’ games shift emphasis from the meaning of the game on its action. Thus, the idea is substantiated that the game is not experiencing the decline, but transformation and a change of emphasis in its interpretation. A comparative analysis of understanding of the game by J. Huizinga, H. Hesse, E. Berne and L. Wittgenstein is being held. The result of this analysis is the assumption that H. Hesse and J. Huizinga are united by the fact that they both seek to ensure that the games remained appolonian element as a harmonious start in their understanding of the game - is a cultural universal. The position of the L.Wittgenstein differs significantly from the above indicated. For him the game - this is a language game that does not always harmonious, is not always clearly constructed composition typical for the games by H. Hesse. Playing field for L.Wittgenstein are «forms of life», which may indicate that his game as well as J. Huizinga, existential, the difference is only in the position of the interpreter, in a shift of emphasis from meaning to the action. J. Huizinga focuses on the classification of games that are played by the representatives of different cultures and L.Wittgenstein focuses on communication, without which it is impossible to play as such.