Figure skating and the philosophy of sport

[Anna K.]

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

I also found out that Coubertin 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.

So I'll take the freedom to correct your spelling in my quote

For not to take the laurels away from the people who developed the concept of benefits of physical education in 19th century (the philosophy aspect of which derives from Plato as we have discussed earlier), and who inspired de Coubertin in this department, the modern Olympic Games were preceded by the Wenlock Olympian Games, an annual event that started in 1850 and is held up to this day - to pay a tribute to this event, one of London 2012 mascots was named Wenlock.
The theorist and organizer behind the Wenlock Olympian Society was Dr William Penny Brookes (1809-1895), an actual doctor and health scientist, who actively collaborated with de Coubertin during the development phase of the international Olympic movement. Here is the summary of his input in the Games as we know them today:

Made up in Britain: Modern Olympics : Dr William Penny Brookes 1850

madeupinbritain.uk

Today, we take international sports events for granted. It's worth remembering that it took some while and effort of many people to establish this practice though.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

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.

I would agree about that Century (and the next) in Astronomy, less on Galileo himself or other Sciences... and sorry for the digression.

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.

I don't think that mixing up foreign names has much to do with it? I could spell relatively well but Wilson, Watson, Weston... It's all the same isn't it? (I think that thanks to Figure Skating, Wilson is all right now, between Tracy Wilson, David Wilson and the Wilson blades.) I think that it's rather about our brain's assessment of the opportunity of opening a new specialty, demanding in resources, allocated to fine understanding/differenciation in a foreign language.
As to proper abilities, let's remember that Beethoven was able to make sums and simple substractions, but not multiplication, he would make sums for the simplest ones. Maybe it was a consequence of his father's drinking, and we can be grateful that he had his abilities and character, unlike his surviving brothers. Who cares if he had no idea of how many instrument strings his Symphonies were activating?
Sorry for this new digression.

 

[Mathman]

Here is a much quoted speech by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt in 1910 ("Citizenship in a Republic").

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again an again ... but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

Well, I am drawn more to philosophizing that is a little more subtle and less bombastic, but anyway, that was Roosevelt's take on it.

 

[Mathman]

By the way, it is hard to overlook the macho/manliness of all of these praises to the glory and societal benefits of sport. The 1910 speech by Theodore Roosevelt quoted immediately above is titled "Citizenship in a Republic" (and was actually delivered at the Sorbonne as advice to France about how a republic ought to be organized.

Roosevelt was a man of his times. Women did not become full citizens of the United States (in the sense of having the right to vote) until 1920.