2. Philosophy - Stefano Franchi

102
A BSOLUTE( S ) SPIELEN
set of features that the philosophical discourse finds relevant, for its own purposes, within
the complex realm of phenomena that goes under the name of Spiel. On the other hand, we
cannot disregard what other non-philosophical disciplines might have concluded about the
phenomenon of Spiel as it happens in human (and possibly not so human) practices. 14 As
our knowledge progresses from both sides, as it were, we will be in a better position to de-
termine, perhaps, their relative distance. For now, though, it seems better to limit our-
selves to the weakest possible assumptions, and choose therefore to consider Spiel, in the
philosophical context of the end of philosophy, as a set of limitations that must be in place
for the success or the failure of the operation.
What are these constraints? Let me repeat them one last time. Whatever lies at the end
of philosophy must possess the characteristic of a form of playing that is both closed, or
rather self-enclosed, and intrinsically open, as I have insisted. Moreover, the openness con-
sists in the possibility, for the actors involved in the play, to engage in reciprocal, antago-
nistic interactions. This, in turn, involves a freedom of movement that must be present in
order for the interaction to take place.
The first conclusion to be drawn about the connection between the end of philosophy
and Spiel is that its logical independence from Hegel’s system, relative to the assumption
about history and truth, translates into a complex set of relations organized around the con-
cept of Spiel, a set whose observance will qualify “any” (that is, not necessarily Hegelian)
eventual end as a proper place for philosophy to rest.
Let us now turn our attention to another aspect of the complex interrelation between
the end of philosophy, and Spiel: let us consider the respective statuses of the “road” and
the “endplace,” first, and especially their possibly different logical status. Hegel introduces,
in the context of the end of philosophy, the idea of a playful (but deeply serious) terrain that
lies beyond philosophy and represents its beyond while being, at the same time, its most
proper own (since it is its final transfiguration and proper achievement). This idea, howev-
er, is just a glimpse; it is an introduction in the most literal sense of ducere intra, of leading
14. In fact, forms of playing found in animals and machines might be relevant to the analysis, at least because
(a) adding a human-only clause to a very general analysis seems unduly restrictive and, moreover,
because (b) non-human play has been quite extensively studied.