User talk:Laxminarayan lenka

Aginst the autonomy of a game:

We have learnt from Wittgenstein that game has no essential common property and that every game is autonomous in the sense that we cannot question the rules of a game. We cannot ask Why must a bishop move diagonally in chess? This autonomy pervades every game such that no game is justified on the basis of another game. But what is about a game that takes place in the contol room behind an actual play of a game? Is not the game of betting determining an actual play of the game of cricket? If not, why should betting be punishable? If yes, how is the game of cricket autonomous?