Finite and Infinite Games

In his book, Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse says there are two types of interactions involving humans in the world: those that have an ending (“finite games”), and those that go on forever (“infinite games”). Finite games have clear boundaries (spatial, numerical, temporal) and agreed-upon rules. After all, without those characteristics, nobody would agree when the game ended. Or who won.

 

If that sounded too competitive, perhaps you prefer infinite games. But to keep the game going indefinitely, rules need to be changeable, at times to ensure the game doesn’t end! (See why governance is an infinite game?). But such games raise a different kind of problem:

“Who, for example, won the French Revolution?”

Notice how an infinite game doesn’t end even when players die? Even more confusingly, players can come and go as they please in infinite games.

 

A finite game forces you to be serious (there’s a specific objective,  you want to achieve it). Whereas an infinite game can be fun (it never ends, rules change, you could always recover).

 

Carse then applies the concept to other areas. Like the difference between titles and names:

“When a person is known by title, the attention is to a completed past, or a game already concluded.”

As opposed to:

“When a person is known only by name, the attention of others is on an open future.”

 

Sadly, the concept of “evil” is an infinite game. It cannot be terminated. Why?

“Evil is never intended as evil. Indeed, the contradiction inherent in all evil is that it originates in the desire to eliminate evil… Evil arises in the honoured belief that history can be tidied up, brought to a sensible conclusion.”

 

The book is a thought-provoking read...