Theoretical Perspectives in the Philosophy of Sports - Essay Example

?PHILOSOPHY OF SPORTS INTRODUCTION Sports have become an integral part of society. Their benefit goes beyond mere physiological advantages derive from engaging with it. Instead, it moves toward the realm where human struggle is exemplified in an arena of equals, where concepts of winning and losing becomes concrete and where the joy of winning and the pain of losing becomes a picture of concrete human condition. However, in the midst of this image of sports and the continued fascination that people have for sports, what is sports? Is sports a game? Is it play? Is it a human condition? In other words, what is it in sports that people sees and experiences it as sport distinct and different from other human actions and endeavors (Thomas, 1976; Hoffman, 1976) In this regard, this paper will attempt to address the question what is sports? In undertaking this task, the writer is aware that one cannot fully encapsulate in one setting the entirety of the notion of sports, however, it hopes that as the paper continues some of the vagueness that some of the attributes inhering the concept may be clarified and establish a clearer notion of sports. SPORTS: WHAT IS IT? Morgan (1976) has looked into the discussion between Huizinga and Gerber regarding the notion of play, which , in turn paves for the possibility for the ontology of ports. Huizinga looks into sports as play (Morgan, 1976). In this signification, one can see the equivalence that is juxtaposed between sports and play. According to Morgan (1976), for Huizing ,play is “an irreducible facet of life whose meaning resides within itself and is not, therefore, contingent on any end it is instrumentally employed, quite incidentally and perhaps inauthentically, to bring about” (p. 25). This whole concept offers the supposition that play is something that is “non-real” and “non serious”, a “free activity standing quite consciously outside ordinary life. If this kind of reasoning is pursued and associated with sports considering that there is a presupposition that Huizinga is looking at sports a play, it opens the notion that sport ahs intrinsic value that is or used not because of any extenuating factors that influence the players, but it is engaged in for its own sake. At this point Gerber, argued that there is seeming misunderstanding of the concept of ‘to be’ in Huizinga’s concept of ‘play is nonreal’ (Morgan,1976). She maintains that there is no ontological impossibility in assuming that play is non real since how can a real person be in play and yet at the same time maintain there is ‘non realness’ in the experience. Morgan (1976) untangling g the dilemma, proposes the position that the term ‘to be’ in the statement “play is non real” is to be understood as not referring to existential ‘is’, but should be understood in the context of the Platonic ‘to be’ which, is a signifier for differentiation and variation but not necessarily referring to existence. This means that the ‘to be’ is not an existential is which denotes the notion that there is no question pertaining to the idea of realness in connection with existing. This position is further supported by the Heideggerian distinction between the ontic and ontology . as a point of clarification, ontic is knowledge base on the actual experience whereas the Heideggerian ontology refers to a prior experience of the phenomenon that allows for the formulation of the criterion that enables one to understand the events not because one has experienced, but because one has extracted from the categories, which makes the phenomenon what it is, and in this sense the phenomenon is play. In this regard, Morgan(1976) has presupposed that Huizinga has misappropriated the terms ‘non real’ when associated with play in the context that it is justified on the premise of the Heidegerrian ontic sense, yet it s is seeks to provide a way to come out with the ontological validity for the concept of play. Gerber has clearly noted this in the counter argument against Huizinga when she points out the ambiguity that seems to be inherent in the use of the term none real within the context of ‘existential is’. Moreover, the confusion of ontic explanation, when in fact one is dealing with the inherent experience of sports and not on the actual experience of it, is significant distinction because it shows that there is a vast difference between the ontic-ontology distinctions. In this sense, the whole article simply calls for the establishment of the criteria the will enable one to understand that the experience of sports not because one is involved in sports but because of the ontological categories that allows one to look into the intricate and inherent experience o f sports, thus, paving for the ontology of sports. However, the whole article does not point where to go when it has asserted that there is the possibility of establishing an ontology of sports within the paradigm of the Heidegerrian ontology. Moreover, this article has given an insight that there is a possibility of the inherent connection between sports and play. This shows that a possible criterion can be established. However, by looking at play as starting point for the understanding the phenomenon of sports, it needs more than elucidating play and sports realness in the context of it being experienced. Since, in the end, it does not clarify what is sports. Continuing with the search for the ontology of sports, the concept of sports has been part of the long history of humanity (Goklan et al, 2010; McNamee, 2007). Sports have been considered as a manifestation of being alive. This manner of looking at sports goes beyond mere physiological movements but it extends toward the social and moral worth of the individual (Aicinana, 2007; Simons, 2003; Trudel et al, 1996). This appreciation of sports is perceptible in ancient Olympics. This opens one reality that is attributed to sports. Sports is versatile, the answer of questions what sports is, reflect perception of the people who gave the answer to it. Sports, is divided into many kinds of different in relation to people who did sports, aim why they did it, place and time when sports are done exhibiting an uncertainty situation in between competition, rivalry and play actions. So, sports cannot be thought under a narrow content as a single dimension, if sports are explained according to its meaning (Goklan et al, 2010). This manner of looking at sports show sports is multidimensional and that it can be approached by looking at diverse relations perceptible in the actuality of sports. It allows, at the same time, to get varying perspective, which in turn can further clarify the picture and notion of what is sports. However, this may present a more conflated image of the ontology of sports as time, culture, individuality, context and environment may create a diverse image of sports across time and space (Hosta, 2008). Another way of charting the ontology of sports is by looking at the sociological interpretation of sports. In this regard, sports is seen as enveloping the macro, meso and micro level (Sotiriadou & Shilbury, 2009). The macro level encompasses the socio-cultural dimension while the meso-level refers to the governing institutions handling sports that create the policies, rules and procedures observe in sports. Finally, micro-level pertains to the individual players themselves (Sotiriadou & Shilbury, 2009). Still, one can look at sports from the its philosophical view. There are several philosophical system that has been used such as Kant’s philosophy, Heidegger or Sartre. As limitation, this paper looks into the combination of the physiological and ethical developments in the contemporary period leading to question the ‘ethical in sports’, which has been the trend in the recent pass (Hilvoorde, Vorstenbosch & Devisch, 2010). In this regard, sports is being looked at from the perspective of the development in the field of medical anthropology and the ethical issues that surrounds contemporary sports (Hilvoorde et al, 2010). In this perspective, the body is taught to play and do sports. This view is derived from the idea that inherent in body is movement and what is artificial is the acquisition of specific patterns of movements corresponding to a particular rule (Hilvoorde et al, 2010). At the same time, ethical issues surrounding money, power, fair play, equality, gender issues and the like have become part of the controversies involving contemporary sports, thus, the need to address these issues arise. This section of the paper presents the current discussions regarding the answers provided by the scholars pertinent to the ontology of sports – what is sport. It has been shown that the question has been approached form diverse fields and has been addressed from various viewpoints. However, as ongoing discussions pertaining to the nature of sports is undertaken, which shows the growing interests to sports’ philosophical discourse, it also caused a more variegated way of understanding sports. In this regard, do these discourses bring us nearer to the ontology of sports? THE CRITIQUE Looking at the range of proffered explanations in order to address the ontology of sports, the following has been observed: First, Morgan (1976) has clearly indicated that there has been a misappropriation of the term play as non-real in relation with sports. It has been noted that the confusion is basically a result of the ambiguous use of ‘to be’ and has been clarified by the ontic and ontology distinction in Heidegger’s philosophical system. However, it has been observed that in the article, although clarification regarding the existential is and ontic-ontology discourse, no additional explanation has been made pertaining to the inquiry in what manner this discussion leads into the path towards ontology of sports. It is not denied that indeed it has clarified the point of discussion by offering the position that efforts should be geared towards setting the categories for understanding the phenomenon of sports beyond the actual experience of it. Since, it is in this condition that one is enabled to categorize the event, but that is just it. What is it in this explanation that enables one to assert that through this clarification one is moving towards the ontology of sports? What are the signposts leading one to the categories? Are there really a priori categories that can be arrived at? Is it simply illusory for there is none? Unfortunately, answers, whether implicitly or explicitly, are not given or even hinted by the author. As such, one is still left behind grappling the relation between play and sports or if there is really a relation at all. Second, in the various approached that have been presented towards understanding what is sports, it has been perceived that pluralism permeates the effort of the scholars (Morgan, 1976; Goklan, et al, 2010; Aicinana, 2007; Thomas, 1976; Hoffman, 1976; Dunja & Simonovic, 2007). They have given various ways of understanding the concept of sport, but they have not created the means with which can sports can be considered in its ontological sense. This means that sports have been described based on how it is being understood in time, space, culture and people who are involved into it. It does not inform the reader as to how and why such attributions can be associated with sports. This situation leads one to speculate that the scholars are following the Wittgenstein’s manner of defining terms wherein he maintains, that there is just family resemblance in concepts such a game, sports and as such one cannot find an essence that will distinctively distinguish sports from other kinds of human actions. In this regard, following Wittgenstein’s family resemblance, the researcher is questioning the validity of looking for the ontology of sports. This is raised because the pluralists view with which sports is currently elucidated existing similarities in the perception of sports across time, space, values, culture and other factors influencing our comprehension of what sports is. The search for the ontology of sports goes beyond the search for dictionary meaning of the term. It endeavors to find what is it in sports that it is a different kind of human action from all other kinds of human action. This is noble, but is there really an essential trait that marks sports from all other forms of human action? Or perhaps what is simply there are attributes that are similar but not necessarily essential? Finally, third, as the discourse regarding the possibility of arriving at clearer definition and understanding of what sports is, what has resulted is a variegated definition and approach as to what are sports. There is a necessity in removing the ambiguity in the concept of sports because sports encompass a wide range of questions such as “Are certain sports also forms of art?; Can kinaesthetic awareness of skilled action claim knowledge-status?; Is justice the basis of all sports ethics?; Can true fans be impartial?; Are Western sports essentially capitalistic in nature?; Do rules alone ground the normativity of sporting practices?” (McNamee, 2004, p. 183) and these are just some of the questions raised against sports. In light of this, a clear and grounded definition of sports or comprehension of the nature of sports may guide scholars as they try to answers questions pertaining to sports (McNamee, 2007). A POSSIBLE APPROACH This is an attempt in providing a probable approach in an attempt to chart an ontology of sports. Just like Morgan (1976), the writer hopes that this step leads us towards ontology of sports. In understanding sports, the writer focuses on two important factors in sports – the nature of human beings and human actions. When dealing with the nature of human beings, the traditional conception is that what makes a human being, a human being is rationality. There is along historical tradition that supports this position. However, it should be noted that this claim is not without strong criticism, especially coming from feminists’ philosophers (eg, Gilligan, 1982; Moulton, 2001). In this sense, when we speak of rationality, we refer to the inherent capacity of human beings, regardless of gender, to look into their condition or context, grasp situation, and understand events as they unfold and an ability to decide which course of action best suits their circumstances. The rational nature of human beings provides ground with which the possibility of understanding human beings vis-a-vis their actions becomes clear (Loudon, 2006). A rational being which has the capacity to decide is given human agency on the premise that the person is free to act on what s/he has decided. Only in this context of being able to decide and acting on what one has decided is the notion of a rational and free human agent becomes clear. Kant claims that understanding human nature as rational and free is a universal attribute of all human beings across time, space and culture and not on specific individuals (Louden, 2006; Gardner, 2006). How is this related to the ontology of sports? At the center of sports is the human person who is consciously undertaking a particular act that has been named as sports. It is a human act not because of the purposes that has been attached to it by all the people involved in the execution of the sports but it is a human act because of the rational and free choice of those involved the sports. In this regard, the ontology of sport begins with rational and free human persons who are capable of executing an act called as sports. In this figure that sports is contained in the larger set of human action, however, there are many other human actions such as moral actions, voluntary actions, and the like. In this regard what distinguishes sport from other human acts? Sports are artificial movements which are human acts because it is rationally and freely chosen and executed by the person (Tamboer, 1992). Artificial movements because it is not something that is necessary to be taken or done by a human being in order to become a human being or to define humanity, but it is learned, developed and performed for other reasons. In this sense, sports are artificial movements freely chosen and performed by human persons. The individual motivations of the people involved in the sports are inessential in defining sports. Rather, the motivations of people behind performing sports present various causes why people are into sports. It varies across history, context and the kind of sports, even if there is an existing degree of similarities in their motivations, it does not help in demarcating sports from other types of human acts. In this regard, what this paper has offered is looking at sports within its own context, a human act that rationally and freely chosen and performed despite it being an artificial movement. At this point, sport is also conceived as an artificial movement on the premise that movements which are entailed falling within the category of sports are not necessary in defining what is humanity. The discussion in this section does not claim that it has provided a solid foundation for the ontology of sports. Rather, it holds that the concepts presented can be deemed as tentative steps towards ontology of sports. CONCLUSION: Sports in its long history and context have driven many men and women to the quest of excellence. Nevertheless, regardless of the motivations individuals may have as they enter into sports, what really is sports is still ambiguous, its nature vague. In this study it has been found out that there are various ways of looking and understanding sports. In fact, pluralists approach permeates the discourse of sports. Yet, what really is sport, is still elusive. Accordingly, it has been proposed in this study that sport is an artificial movement within human act that is rationally and freely chosen and performed. This proposal is not the panacea for the ontology of sports. Instead, it is a proposal that is open for consideration as people endeavor and tries to apprehend the ontology of sports. (2990) REFERENCES Aicinana, s 2007, ‘Moral imperatives and modern sports’, J. Edu Human Development, vol. 1, no 1, p 2. Dunja & Simonovic, L 2007, A new world is possible. Belgrade. Gardner, S 2006, ‘The primacy of practical reason’, In G Bird (ed) A Companion to Kant, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Gilligan, C 1982, In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Gokhan C, Goral, M & Yildiran I 2008, ‘Philosophy of some Turkish traditional sports’, Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 5, no 7, pp. 710 -721. Goral, M, Caliskan, G & Yetim, A 2009, ‘Relationship of sports with morality and sports morality of individuals interested in sports’, The Social Sciences, vol. 4, no 3, pp. 269 – 277. Hoffman, SJ 1976, ‘The athletae Dei: Missing the meaning of sport’, Journal of the Philosophy of Sports, vol. 3, pp. 42 – 51. Hosta, M 2008, ‘Ethics and sports: Whose ethics, which ethos- a prolegomenon’, Kinesiology, vol. 40, no 1, pp. 89 – 95. Louden, RB 2006, ‘Applying Kant’s ethics: The role of anthropology’, In G Bird (ed) A Companion to Kant, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. McNamee, MJ, 2004, ‘Philosophy of sports’, Nursing Philosphy, vol. 5, pp. 182 -183. --- 2007, ‘Sports, ethics and philosophy: Context, history and prospects’, Sports, Ethics and Philosophy, vol. 1, no 1, pp. 1 – 6. Morgan, W 1976, ‘On the path towards an ontology of sports’, Journal of the Philosophy of Sports, vol. 3, pp. 25 – 34. Moulton, J 2001, ‘Why everyone deserves a sporting chance: Education, justice and school sports’, In J. Andre and D. James (Eds) Rethinking College Atheletics, Philadelphia: Temple University Press. pp. 210 – 220. Simons, HD 2003, ‘Race and penalized sports behaviors’, Int. Rev. Sociol Sports, vol. 38, no 1, pp. 5 – 22. Sotiriadou, KP & Shilbury, D 2009, ‘Australian Elite Athlete Development: An Organisational Perspective’, Sport Management Review, vol. 12, iss 3, pp. 137 – 148. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2009.01.002 Tamboer, JWI 1992, ‘Sport and motor actions’, Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, vol. 19, pp. 31–45. Thomas, D 1976, ‘Sport : the conceptual enigma’, Journal of the Philosophy of Sports, vol. 3, pp. 35 – 41. Trudel, P et al 1996, ‘Systematic observation of youth ice hockey coaches during games’, J Sport Behav, vol. 19, pp. 50 -65. Van Hilvoorde, I , Vorstenbosch, J & Devisch, I 2010, ‘Philosophy of sports in Belgium and The Netherlands, Journal of Philosophy of Sports, vol. 37, pp. 225 – 236. Wittgenstein, L 2009, Philosophical Investigations, Trans by G.E.M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker & J Schulte - Rev. 4th ed by P.M.S. Hacker & J Schulte, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK. Read More