Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Francisco Javier López Frías (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: