I found Huzinga’s reading particularly frustrating when considering my own philosophical perspective on games. I disagree with how he characterizes games as irrational, and strictly a social construction. When I think of games, and how they function in the daily lives of people, I consider the work of neuroscientists like David J. Linden. Linden has done extensive research –as have many others– on the role games play with triggering the pleasure sensors in the brain. In this way I find mankind’s fascination with games completely rational. Just as food, sex, drugs, and other activities trigger the pleasure seeking centers of our brains, so do games –though not in the same way. This is why human culture has created games, and we are so inclined to play them. Games trigger the reward sensors in our brains, particularly when it comes to competitive games or games in which money, points, or prizes can be won. In addition, I disagree with the idea that games have to be unordinary or imagined. People turn real life situations into games all the time whether it be a simple bet at work to see who can get something done first, a guessing game with a friend about what people are saying or going to do next, etc. Games can be found completely interwoven in real, daily life as much as they can be imagined or make believe. Games are not bound to the unordinary. One thing I do agree with is Huzinga’s idea that games must have order and are beautiful. People are instinctively attracted to the beautiful, the sublime, and the symmetrical. People are attracted to order. Without order and rules society would be anarchic and chaotic. In this I also find the construction of games completely rational. While I do disagree with the arguments made in the reading, I appreciate the historical significance of the work. I realize it was published in 1938, and presented a very new and innovative philosophy of games at the time.