Figure skating and the philosophy of sport

[Anna K.]

I think that the difficulty is that we are using two different uses of the word "philosophy." One is what Plato and Aristotle meant: love of learning. The other, as in superficial questions like "What is your philosophy of life?" with expected answers like. "If you believe in yourself you can accomplish all things, my son" -- these are more in the line of folksy maxims to live by, rather than profundities of metaphysics, epistemology, etc.

And in fact, I think that the profundities-of-being-profound type of philosophy has been in steady decline since the days of Plato and Aristotle, for the simple reason that we have come gradually to understand that we don't know what we are talking about and will never be able to say anything remotely intelligent about questions such as, "How do we come to know things and how do we know that what we know is true? -- although Ilia Malinin could work it into a voice-over skating program. To which Alysa Liu could respond, "Let's boogie!"

I don't think that philosophy counts as "love of learning" if I love learning how to cook ... or, to learn how to skate, in the context of this thread.

I'd rather stick to the lore of a certain insightful TV character who quipped that "philosophy is basically thinking about thinking".

Here, we get to the point: athletes can indeed do their sport without thinking. Spectators can indeed get attracted without thinking as well, like, when a crowd gathers around two men fighting on a street. But do we want it to happen sans thinking? Or, do we prefer some thought processes being involved? If we want any thought processes in sport, shall we think about them? If yes, congratulations: we are thinking about thinking We are doing philosophy of sports now. In this case, both a university paper in Philosophy of Sports on 100 pages and a popular maxim serve the same purpose - in two rather different ways though.

 

[Mathman]

I don't think that philosophy counts as "love of learning" if I love learning how to cook ...

You know, that's the funny thing. A person can get a PhD (Doctor of Philosophy degree) in Mathematics. Or in Sociology. Or in "Culinary Arts." In the U.S., Michigan State University has a PhD program in Culinary Arts, as do New York University and Cornel.

The University of Dundee (Scotland) has a PhD project (either on-campus or study at home over the unternet) in Truth and Being Laid Bare -- the Use of Nudity in Philosophy. (I assume that the course begins by studying the logical fallacy associated with the question of what a True Scotsman wears under his kilt.)

Anyway... I am trying to think of some relevant questions that "thinking about thinking about sport" might entail. Here is the best one that I have thought of so far.

Should an athlete be a good sport or a bad sport?

One side of the debate would be, Duh. Good is good. Bad is bad. Good > bad. QED.

The opposite side: "Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser."

 

[4everchan]

philosophy means love of wisdom... not learning.
wisdom can include learning but not all learning is wise

 

[Mathman]

philosophy means love of wisdom... not learning.
wisdom can include learning but not all learning is wise

I think that's the problem. The wisdom of Aristotle dominated western thought for 1500 years, including the wisdom that he achieved in scientific matters. Come the rise of the scientific method with Galileo and Newton as a superior approach to questions about what the world is really like, it turned out that everything Aristotle said about scientific questions was dead wrong and in fact, silly baloney.. Emanuel Kant was so wise that no one can undertint anything that he wrote -- it mostly seems like gibberish.

Duns Scotus was asprominent and respected theologian and made wise pronouncements on the philosophy of religion -- until his wisdom fell into disrepute and anyone who thought that way was labelled a "dunce" and had to sit in the corner at school wearing the dunce cap.

Plato, however, did say one thing of profound wisdom: "let no one ignorant of geometry enter here" -- posted at the doorway to his Academy.

 

[4everchan]

I think that's the problem. The wisdom of Aristotle dominated western thought for 1500 years, including the wisdom that he achieved in scientific matters. Come the rise of the scientific method with Galileo and Newton as a superior approach to questions about what the world is really like, it turned out that everything Aristotle said about scientific questions was dead wrong and in fact, silly baloney.. Emanuel Kant was so wise that no one can undertint anything that he wrote -- it mostly seems like gibberish.

Duns Scotus was as prominent and respected theologian and made wise pronouncements on the philosophy of religion -- until his wisdom fell into disrepute and anyone who thought that way was labelled a "dunce" and had to sit in the corner at school wearing the dunce cap.

Plato, however, did say one thing of profound wisdom: "let no one ignorant of geometry enter here" -- posted at the doorway to his Academy.

I see no problem here.

Just evolution. What was right in 500 BC is not necessarily right now.

But Plato was right, if you don't know geometry, or in skating, figures, don't enter the ice

 

[BlissfulSynergy]

So I went through the actual quotes.
It's interesting that Plato never talks about competing athletes.

He talks about physique & mind of an ideal citizen when he says:
"He who is only an athlete is too crude, too vulgar, too much a savage. He who is a scholar only is too soft, to effeminate. The ideal citizen is the scholar athlete, the man of thought and the man of action." - The Republic, 410b-d

He also talks about the physique & mind of military men:
"Anyone who is going to be a truly good guardian of our community, then, will have a philosopher’s love of knowledge, and will be passionate, quick on his feet, and strong.
- The Republic, 376c
"And our guardians are, in fact, both warriors and philosophers.’
- The Republic, 525

Similarly, in a Socrates' quote via Xenophon, a well developed body is seen as a goal in itself:
"It is a disgrace to grow old through sheer carelessness before seeing what manner of man you may become by developing your bodily strength and beauty to their highest limit. But you cannot see that, if you are careless; for it will not come of its own accord.” – Socrates, Xenophon’s Memorabilia 3.12 (Loeb version) [Apparently, Socrates said it with a deep sigh because he was infamously careless - Anna K.]

A competition or a rivalry is not mentioned as a motivating factor here; neither is a victory as a goal.
Well, we know from other sources that Plato did compete himself. But it seems that the athleticism, the harmony of body and soul, was the main goal for him while competitions and games were a byproduct not worth mentioning.

There is an earlier quote, attributed to Pythagoras, in which competing is mentioned but not in a good light as well:
"[Pythagoras] used to compare life to a festival [panêguris]. And as some people came to a festival to contend for the prizes, and others for the purposes of selling their wares, and the best as spectators; so also in life, the men of slavish dispositions, said he, are born to the pursuit of fame and material gain, but philosophers are seekers after truth. (Diogenes Laertius, Lives, 8.6)

So, when did it all start changing?

Thanks for all this wisdom and food for thought in relation to sport and philosophy. I thought from the thread title that this was about a recent book on sport and philosophy with a chapter on figure skating. There are definitely books about figure skating approached from cultural, gender-based, and philosophical perspectives.

This is a good time after the exhausting Olympics, hopeful junior Worlds and prior to the uncertain senior Worlds to try and put the meaning of sport into perspective. I particularly appreciate Donovan Carrillo's thoughts. It speaks of his growth as an athlete and a person. Striving hard and learning not to let your joy and fulfillment in your performance be lessened or dictated by often excruciating kiss 'n cry outcomes.

While some of the skaters' thoughts mentioned in this thread may incorporate common wisdom and sayings, that's not unusual. For example, I always thought I was the first to say as a fan of Michelle Kwan, "It's the journey, not the destination." I probably borrowed it from other widsom I'd read combined with Michelle's own balanced perspectives. Then, everyone in figure skating began referencing the same words/ wisdom, perhaps because it's so true.

In terms of the wisdom of ancient Greek philosophers, they were much closer to nature and to the uncorrupted rhythms of daily life than we are in this hectic, technologically uncertain century. Many things were uncertain, too, during the lifetimes of the great philosophers, but the uncertainties were seemingly on a different scale, again, often associated with the vagaries of nature and complexities of being human. Today, we still face the vagaries of nature along with the positive and negative aspects of human nature. But on a more vast and complicated scale. Youth and sport serve more as a delightful escape from scary realities going on in the world. And perhaps as a beacon of hope for the spirit of good overcoming evil.

More well known Biblical wisdom:
"The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" Matthew 26:41
Can be interpreted in different ways. For athletes, it is the reason why they must discipline themselves to train everyday.

Further elaboration, I believe translated from Chinese wisdom:
"Sometimes our body is willing but our mind is weak. Sometimes our mind is willing but our body is weak. Do not be afraid. Strive to extend your capacity but do not be disappointed with yourself. What does not challenge us, cannot change us."

The above takes us full circle back to what Carrillo reflected upon: "The effort itself is already part of the reward."

Leading us back to the undenial truth: "It's the journey that matters most, not the destination." As well, from philosopher, Epictetus, "It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters."

 

[BlissfulSynergy]

I don't think that philosophy counts as "love of learning" if I love learning how to cook ... or, to learn how to skate, in the context of this thread.

I'd rather stick to the lore of a certain insightful TV character who quipped that "philosophy is basically thinking about thinking".

Here, we get to the point: athletes can indeed do their sport without thinking. Spectators can indeed get attracted without thinking as well, like, when a crowd gathers around two men fighting on a street. But do we want it to happen sans thinking? Or, do we prefer some thought processes being involved? If we want any thought processes in sport, shall we think about them? If yes, congratulations: we are thinking about thinking We are doing philosophy of sports now. In this case, both a university paper in Philosophy of Sports on 100 pages and a popular maxim serve the same purpose - in two rather different ways though.

Well, it depends on the situation and the context. Like what happened to Shizuka Arakawa, it is best for most athletes for their thinking brain to quiet and their muscle memory and practiced emotional response to the music to take over. Thinking too much while performing is not a good thing. Ask any athlete, including Ilia Malinin, Nathan Chen, Patrick Chan, et al. The list is long. Dick Button surely spoke about this in one of his books, as likely did other skaters who have written about their careers in the sport.

 

[BlissfulSynergy]

I see no problem here.

Just evolution. What was right in 500 BC is not necessarily right now.

But Plato was right, if you don't know geometry, or in skating, figures, don't enter the ice

Learn to Skate apprentices enter the ice without necessarily understanding geometry, much less figures. Their challenge is to remember to bend their knees and try to stay upright. Upon the inevitable tumble, they must learn how to fall and how to get up again and push forward with 'vaunted courage.'

 

[Mathman]

I see no problem here... What was right in 500 BC is not necessarily right now.

To me, where the "problem" arises is that it just seems impossible for human beings to utter those three little words, "I don't know." They (we) would rather make up any kind of fairy tale, however unsupported by facts, than to tell the simple truth, "I don't know."

What is lightning? The truthful answer (back in the day) was "I don't know." The answer of the great thinkers was, "That's the great god Thor up there in Valhalla beating on his forge with his magic hammer. Now that you know the truth, put all your money in the collection plate and I'll tell him to stop. Then we can use that money to raise a big army and kill all the people who don't go along with the great god Thor scenario."

 

[Anna K.]

Since Antiquity has been mentioned a lot in this thread -
I just overheard an Ancient Roman sports joke in a YouTube video called... well, in this YouTube video:



This is a selection of jokes about a character named "scholastikos" - a scholar, apparently. This is the sports one:
At a celebration of Rome’s thousandth anniversary, a scholastikos saw an athlete weeping after defeat and tried to console him: “Do not be sad! You will win again at the next millenium celebration.”

I guess some things don't change over millennia

My absolute favorite of the selection is this though:
A scholastikos met another scholastikos and said, “I heard that you were dead.” The other replied, “As you can see, I’m still alive.” And the first said, “Indeed, but my informant is far more trustworthy than you”.

 

[Anna K.]

Once I have brought this thread up, here is a bite: figure skating has been an Olympic sport for longer than a century. Skaters have been taking part not only in Olympic events but also in athletes' committees and similar, I'd say ideological, aspects of the Games.
However, Pierre de Coubertin never got mentioned in this thread and we don't find him in skaters quotes - at least not in popular ones. Why would that be?

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

It's not actually the Philosophy of Sport as much as Philosophy in Sport, and it applies to all Sports, including Pillow Battle nowadays (couldn't they keep it just a play?), but Saint Paul recommends to take example on Athletes who undergo so much exertion for the sake of victory, and to apply it to our spiritual life (I chose this page because the quotes appear while scrolling, albeit from a dubious translation):

Ancient Sports and Paul's Use of Ancient Sports Metaphors in His Epistles - Updated American Standard Version

Paul’s sports metaphors teach disciplined Christian faith, self-control, endurance, evangelism, and the imperishable crown from God.

uasvbible.org

I perceive Yuzuru Hanyu's "efforts will lie, but they will not be in vain" as having partly this meaning. Here it's in 2016:

Yuzuru Hanyu - Wikiquote

en.wikiquote.org

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

I think that's the problem. The wisdom of Aristotle dominated western thought for 1500 years, including the wisdom that he achieved in scientific matters. Come the rise of the scientific method with Galileo and Newton as a superior approach to questions about what the world is really like, it turned out that everything Aristotle said about scientific questions was dead wrong and in fact, silly baloney.. Emanuel Kant was so wise that no one can undertint anything that he wrote -- it mostly seems like gibberish.

Duns Scotus was asprominent and respected theologian and made wise pronouncements on the philosophy of religion -- until his wisdom fell into disrepute and anyone who thought that way was labelled a "dunce" and had to sit in the corner at school wearing the dunce cap.

Plato, however, did say one thing of profound wisdom: "let no one ignorant of geometry enter here" -- posted at the doorway to his Academy.

Please tell us to which Galileo legend you refer to? They usually have so little to do with facts... But yes Aristotle's scientific statements, sound for his time's observation possibilities, held during much of Medieval and Early Modern times while severely crackling from the end of Medieval times on; as to his Philosophical teachings, I wouldn't say that they would be seriously challenged as well, not depending on Technology but on thinking; as we're in the Soccer World Cup, I'm quite with the Greek team in this much more interesting meeting, although Marx looks cute:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[Anna K.]

Once I have brought this thread up, here is a bite: figure skating has been an Olympic sport for longer than a century. Skaters have been taking part not only in Olympic events but also in athletes' committees and similar, I'd say ideological, aspects of the Games.
However, Pierre de Coubertin never got mentioned in this thread and we don't find him in skaters quotes - at least not in popular ones. Why would that be?

Regarding why I find this interesting...

I recently came across this article from previous Paris Games that sums up the controversial aspects of Pierre de Coubertin's heritage.

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20240718-fanatical-colonialist-uneasy-legacy-french-founder-of-modern-olympics-paris-games

 

[Mathman]

Please tell us to which Galileo legend you refer to? They usually have so little to do with facts...

The century from Galileo to Newton is widely credited -- correctly, I believe -- with establishing what is now called the "scientific (or empirical) method" as THE way to approach scientific questions. Basically, scientists started "philosophizing less, experimenting more."

The broader question that modern philosophers of science debate is is this. As one theory gives way to a more successful one (success measured by the criteria of suggesting novel experiments, using the theory to make predictions about what the outcome of these experiments will be, then carrying out the experiment to see how the theory performed ) -- as one theory gives way to another, are we making "progress" towards a better understanding of the world or are we just going around in endless circles.

Many practicing scientists believe that we are closing in on real knowledge, others that we never will.

 

[Mathman]

Regarding why I find this interesting...

I recently came across this article from previous Paris Games that sums up the controversial aspects of Pierre de Coubertin's heritage.

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20240718-fanatical-colonialist-uneasy-legacy-french-founder-of-modern-olympics-paris-games

Thanks for posting this artical. Very interesting and highly relevant to this thread. Baron de Couperin was at heart an educator whose strongest conviction was in the benefits of physical education.

I also found out that Couperin won an Olympic Gold Medal himself. At the 1912 Olympic Games in the sport of "literature," for his poem, submitted under a pseudonym, on the glories of sport.

 

[Anna K.]

Baron de Couperin

These are two different people, actually: Francois Couperin (1668-1733), the musician and composer of French Baroque, and Baron Pierre de Coubertin (1863-1937), the French historian and founder of modern Olympic Games - and your subconscious has done an excellent job by merging them because both have left intriguingly complex heritage.

So, if you find discussing de Coubertin's heritage too depressing or, ugh, political, then here is a Guardian article about the theories and mysteries surrounding Couperin's best known work, Les Barricades Mystérieuses:

Solving François Couperin's Les Barricades Mystérieuses | Tom Service

Tom Service: This kaleidescopic musical trompe l’oeil will invade your consciousness for weeks

www.theguardian.com

As for the heritage of Baron Pierre de Coubertin, when looking from a distance of time, it strikes that he in fact intended to recreate a Medieval tournament in which aristocrats compete for glory and gentlewomen's smile rather than Olympic Games from Antiquity. We the next generations have been trying to make something, eh, more contemporary out of it with various success. Here is an interesting National Geographic article that has a take on this process, which is often no less controversial than the origins of modern Games:

There's a Dark History Behind the Glittering Olympic Games

The athletic spectacle has been tarnished by racism, sexism, and displacement of the poor.

www.nationalgeographic.com

This article was written in 2016 with Rio Olympics in mind. But I would say that today provides even more interesting material of thought regarding where the Olympics movement stands in the modern world. Although most often in the sports community, we see baroque dancing around hidden barriers rather than discussing problems directly

 

[Mathman]

These are two different people, actually:

Wait, what? Who are two different people? I wrote only about the guy who was involved with establishing the modern Olympic Games. The other person with a similar name -- does he have anything to do with this discussion on philosophy of sport?

 

[Anna K.]

The other person with a similar name -- does he have anything to do with this discussion on philosophy of sport?

It did for me. Doesn't necessarily have to do for you

 

[Mathman]

It did for me. Doesn't necessarily have to do for you

Spelling was always my downfall. When I was a child in grade school my teachers would constantly upbraid me with, "You're not trying. You're OK at math, but you can't spell CAT."

I guess what confused me was, I don't think that the 17th century composer and musician made any pronouncements on the philosophy of sport. so I was caught off guard. Sorry.