English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In this article, I consider Alkis Kontos’ and Allan Bäck’s critiques to Suits that his theory of games and good living lack ontological grounds or rests on the wrong foundations. Taking these critics as my point of departure (not as my critical target), I provide an analysis of the main tenets of Suits’ anthropology. This anthropology partly lays the grounds that Kontos and Bäck claim Suits’ theory lacks. I proceed as follows, I examine Suits’ early works, to which Kontos and Bäck had access, to argue that they contain an anthropology, albeit in an embryonic state. Subsequently, I examine Suits’ latter works, which remained inaccessible to Kontos and Bäck when they formulated their critiques, to identify and explain the key elements of Suits’ anthropology.

Ants, grasshoppers, asshoppers, and crickets cohabit in Utopia: the anthropological foundations of Bernard Suits’ analyses of gameplay and good living