THE AMBIVALENCE OF PLAY: PAIDIA VS LUDUS

Abstract

This article examines the philosophical and cultural understanding of play with an emphasis on her ambivalent nature and dual modes of expression. Central is the distinction between paidia and ludus – spontaneous, creative playfulness versus structured, institutionalized play. In history of philosophy context drawing on classical works by Roger Caillois and Johan Huizinga key characteristics of games, such as freedom, limitation, uncertainty of outcome, non-productivity, regularity, and fictiveness, as well as the classification of game types (agon, alea, mimicry, ilinx) are analyzed. These categories often interact and sometimes conflict, highlighting the complexity and multifaceted character of play. The article situates ludus within a historical philosophical tradition from Plato and Aristotle to Huizinga and Caillois, where play is treated as organized practice, while paidia represents an ontological concept in Heraclitus, Nietzsche, and Deleuze, where play embodies fluidity, creativity, and self-affirmation. Special attention is given to the impact of video games on contemporary ludology: their widespread popularity reinforces the perception of play as ludus, yet the authors argue that the true nature of play also encompasses paidia – spontaneous imagination and freedom of action. The study stresses the need to understand play as a complex phenomenon combining rules and creativity, structure and randomness, institutionalization and individual freedom, and as an inseparable aspect of culture and human existence. In conclusion, the authors suggest that contemporary ludology and philosophical studies of video games gain the greatest insight when they account for the dual nature of play, enabling humans to be both participants within systems and creators of their own experience.