Competitions can be divided into two types: games and wars. (Are there other types?) The only difference between a game and a war is that in a game everyone agrees upon the rules of the game whereas in a war there is no such agreement. Do you agree with this? If not, how would you define the difference between a game and a war?

Competitions can be divided into two types: games and wars. (Are there other types?) The only difference between a game and a war is that in a game everyone agrees upon the rules of the game whereas in a war there is no such agreement. Do you agree with this? If not, how would you define the difference between a game and a war?

Your question reminds me of the question, what is the difference between a boy and a postage stamp. Answer, one you stick with a lick, and one you lick with a stick. What is interesting about the question is that there are so many differences that you don't know where to start. What sort of difference are you looking for. Wars and games are both competitions, that is true, but there, it seems to me, the resemblance ends. Wars are serious, games are not (at least noting like wars). And, as Jeeprs points out, the game of playing by yourself shooting hoops in basket ball isn't even competitive. Jeeprs mentioned Wittgenstein who actually used the example of games to make his point that there may not be anything is common to all games (and so, maybe nothing common to all wars) which, if true, would undercut your question, since your question assumes that there is something in common to all games.

Boxing seems like a serious game, the old jousting tournaments could end in fatalaties.

Imo the great difference is the amount of people directly involved, and the goals, often wars are much more costly in lives.

Are boxing or jousting games? Why? People play basketball and chess, but nobody plays boxing (or jousting). And to "play war" is to pretend you are at war, or to play war games.

The oplympic games involves boxing, just because it's a game doesn't nessesarily needs applying the term "play" to it.

.

Wars are games whose consequences outweigh their entertainment

But that assumes the wars are games. And that is a part of the issue. Are wars games? The argument:

1. All games are competitive.
2. All wars are competitive.

Therefore, 3, all wars are games

Is a fallacious argument. It commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle term.

If you come to a consensus on what you wish to define a game as, then you will see that all aspects of life is a game. Wars are merely a type of game, just as everything else.

You are using the term "game" in a way I don't understand, and in a way it is not ordinarily used. If everything is a "game" then nothing is a "game" for, in that case, the term "game" is no longer useful for distinguishing between games and non-games. It loses its meaning.

Why not? ...................

Competitions can be divided into two types: games and wars. (Are there other types?) The only difference between a game and a war is that in a game everyone agrees upon the rules of the game whereas in a war there is no such agreement. Do you agree with this? If not, how would you define the difference between a game and a war?

I just find it hard to see the term "play" fitting to all games,

Maybe that is because they are not games. If you say, "Sewing is a game", and I say, "But you cannot play sewing", that may be because you are wrong to think that sewing is a game, and not because "play" does not fit all games.

Then how can you account for sports being games, when they'r in the Olympic Games ..see G-A-M-E-S, please explain that. It's like you ignore a blatant fact and go on with you usual illusive metaphors.