invitation

subject

programme

schedule

application form

scientific council

organizing committee

basic information

hotels

photo gallery

Subject matter

Due to the fact that in post-modern society the play embraces a wide range of social situations and experiencing pleasure is the main goal of the activities taking up individually and collectively, it is necessary to consider the definition of ludic behavior corresponding to the present day. Generally, it might be asked whether the twenty-first century is the "era of fun" and why playing human can become a symbol of modernity. If it is true, that fun is in the human nature and it is earlier than the culture as Johan Huizinga assumed, so what faces of Homo Ludens form the past and nowadays could be regarded as a proof of the wagered thesis. The play and its functions is such important aspect of life, but also a system of values, which gives a meaning of human activities. So why meanings are given that making it is not only a social need but on the existential? Many questions arise when the idea of Homo Ludens is considered. That is a reason the problems have been generated, which are the main topic of the conference.

1. The ambiguity of the idea of free time causes that the different forms of pleasure behaviors could be nowadays called fun or play. So can be assumed that hedonism is the superior idea, desire and the value of people living at the beginning of this culture, some kind of "spirit of the age" which leads to "moral decay" of humanity and thus `cultural collapse' in the distributive meaning?
2. The ludic behavior has social determinants in the meaning that they are not only environmentaly determinanted, but also they change its forms depending on the style. Is it possible today to speak about the "trendy play"? If so, what way the trendy is opposed to the cultural tradition and included denial values, which are confirmed by tradition?
3. The play and its symbols are changing of the form and contents, which causes that the whole structure of play is also changed. So as far as today cognitive interesting and empirically instrumental is the idea of Roger Callois? Do the structural elements of play are "hidden" regularities in the behavior of playing people or perhaps outright manipulation methods used by the mass event's organizers, mass media,
computer games, social networks or similar forms of "fun to play"?
4. Why play, as a different sphere of reality which has cultural aspect, permeates the political, economic, religious and aesthetic system of postmodern world. Is it only about commercialization or about the nature of humanity?
5. What functions contemporary does the play assigned to the section of social gender, age, class-stratified attachment, religious and ethic. If we accepts the idea that play is an integral part of socialization process, how that differentiates the process of primary and secondary socialization?
6. Why "education through play" can form altruistic personality, as well as a selfish one and therefore lead to internalization of pro-social and antisocial values?
7. Can we talk about the philosophical aspects of a play? What kind of way the people's willingness to confront the seriousness with play, illusion - truth, duty - pleasure and similar ways of dividing reality, has it source in the culture?

The answers to above questions are important because of changes in contemporary culture. The purpose of science is learning reality in order to know, interpret and understand human behavior. And here arises the last question: is it possible to understand the "nature" of play?