What Philosophy Tells Us About Card Play
Given the extensive history behind a simple pack of standard playing cards, it should not surprise you that cards can be seen as a mirror of society: that’s essentially why the court cards have kings, queens, and jacks in them. In as early as 1377 , Johannes of Rheinfelden wrote De moribus et disciplina humanae conversationis, id est ludus cartularum ; a treatise on card play in Europe. It is the oldest surviving description of medieval card play. In essence, when you play a game of Whist, you’re playing with the remains of the medieval European feudal system. That sounds a bit ominous so let’s skip the grim history lesson and instead focus on what philosophy can tell us about card play. Would they be able to offer interesting insights on why humans like to play and why we should (not) keep on doing it? Arthur Schopenhauer detested card games or any form of leisure activity. According to him, the clear lack of an intellectual deed would distract us from pondering the real questions of life. Schopenhauer thinks that by playing cards, you’re merely fulfilling a basic instinct-level need instead of enjoying higher intellectual pleasures (from Aphorisms on the Wisdom of Life ): Dancing, the theatre, society, card‑playing, games of chance, horses, women, drinking, travelling, and so on… are not enough to ward off boredom where intellectual pleasures are rendered impossible by lack of intellectual needs. […] Thus a peculiar characteristic of the Philistine is a dull, dry seriousness akin to that of animals. In The Wisdom of Life, and Other Essays , he scoffs at us players, declaring us “bankrupt of thought”: Hence, in all countries the chief occupation of society is card‑playing, and it is the gauge of its value, and an outward sign that it is bankrupt in thought. Because people have no thoughts to deal in, they deal cards, and try and win one another’s money. Idiots! That’s certainly an original way of putting it. Schopenhauer is well-known for being the grumpy old depressive philosopher who bashes on anything he can think of, except for music and walking with his dog. Because people have no thoughts to deal in, they deal in cards, and try to win another’s money. Idiots! I guess he failed to see that just having fun is what makes living bearable. Criticising play in general is a common recurring theme in philosophy: play is said to distract from the very essence of thinking. In On Consolation , Seneca the Younger criticises Gaius Caesar for gambling to distract his grief after losing his sister Drusilla. According to Seneca, that’s evidence of moral failure. Speaking of which, Michel de Montaigne also seems to categorize card play as a stern morality exercise. In Of the Art of Conference , he notes that even in casual play sessions together with his wife and daughter, one has to stay honest by treating these small actions of integrity—by not cheating and following suit, I guess?—the same as the bigger stakes in life. In another of his essays, Of Drunkenness , he directly compares life to a game of chance where chance can easily mess up any plans we prepared. We, just like the card drawn from the deck, are at the mercy of Lady Luck. Maybe many philosophers dislike games of chance because they do not want to admit that much of our life’s experiences is left to chance 1 . Perhaps that’s why you gotta roll with the cards you’re dealt . Fifty years later, Blaise Pascal acknowledged Montaigne’s idea. He wrote extensively on wagering and views the human condition as one of uncertainty. We must make decisions with incomplete information—and live with the consequences that come with them. Doesn’t that sound like making a move in any game? On the very other end of the spectrum, we find Johan Huizinga’s Homo Ludens directly opposing Schopenhauer’s negative opinion on play. In the thick tome, Huizinga explores the very nature of play as a fundamental element of our human culture. Play is essential to keep our sanity/ Play is what makes us human. Huizinga briefly mentions card gaming as an example of a game with a clear set of rules defining boundaries and structure. Within that boundary, players can foster their skills. Huizinga seems to discard Schopenhauer’s bankruptcy idea completely. Play—including card play—is an essential part that embodies order, freedom, creativity, and even has a social and psychological function. Culture develops through play. Of course, Huizinga extensively studied play as part of his academic research meaning it would be a bit silly if he were to discard the subject as superfluous. In 1958, Roger Caillois built on top of Huizinga’s ideas in Les jeux et les hommes , investigating and categorizing games into different systems. Card games fall under games of chance but also contain a competitive aspect. The interesting Caillois notes is that some cultures handle dealing with chance differently: some celebrate it and embrace their fate, while others desperately try to master it (and usually fail). Guess which category our Western society falls under. It doesn’t take a big stretch to connect Caillois’ card play with the art of living. How do we live in relation to chance? Do we embrace it or try to resist and shape it? Life, just like card games, is not about winning, but about playing well. The act of playing cards can embody the act of living: we must navigate uncertainty, play and work within a set of constraints, read others and try to adapt to their moves, and perhaps above all find meaning in playing the game for the sake of playing the game. In the end, everybody wins, right? Or was it the house that always wins? I forgot. This article is part eight in a series on trick taking and card games . Stay tuned for more! Note that I’m interchanging the words luck and chance here even though depending on your interpretation, they are not the same. ↩︎ Related topics: / card games / philosophy / By Wouter Groeneveld on 29 September 2025. Reply via email .
Philosophy
Culture
JavaScript
Gaming
AI
Writing