This was not an examination of the works of the great American Mathematician John Nash but more an examination of the nature of a game. This week, our students began by attempting, in small groups to define a game. Such a definition should be applicable to any and every game. The resulting list was shared on the whiteboard: it must have an objective, it must end in a result, it must have at least one “player”, it must involve activity, it must be enjoyable, it must have rules, the participants need not be human. An excellent set of criteria. The students were then told to try and challenge this list by finding flaws in the definitions, a task they relished. After a few minutes all the criteria had been demolished. On the way the students had anticipated the Philosophies of Wittgenstein, Berkely and John Paul Sartre when they questioned whether there was a point to any game, what about virtual games with no players and where do games with their own unique set of rules fit in?

Beyond all this interesting speculation about the nature of games, in the real world we all play games, we pretty much know what a game is and we don’t like losing. For some philosophers it doesn’t need to be more than that.