ABSTRACT
The freedom of play, its disinterestedness, and the presence of tension are common among major discussions of play, from Kant’ aesthetic theory, to Huizinga’s Homo Ludens, to Gadamer’s Truth and Method. Another shared feature among these accounts is the assumption of the universality of play as a feature of both human beings and culture. This approach is blind to other philosophical traditions. For instance, the early daoist text Zhuangzi is playful. It often presents the reader with puzzles, paradoxes and poetry rather than discrete argument. Many translators and commentators gloss the Zhuangzian term 遊 (you) as “play,” “free play,” or “wandering.” I will discuss both the applicability of Huizinga’s features of play, with special focus on how those features are exhibited in what he considers philosophical play-forms, as well as Alan Levinovitz’s arguments regarding the conceptualization of 遊 (you) as a Zhuangzian ideal. In true Zhuangzian, playful, style, the text frustrates attempts to give rigid definition to concepts like play or 遊 (you).
