Philosophy of Sport from the Institutional, Content Related and Methodological Viewpoint

Open access

Philosophy of Sport from the Institutional, Content Related and Methodological Viewpoint

In this article Author presents the dispute on the philosophy of sport. He points out four standpoints concerning the existence of the philosophy of sport: a) a commonsense one, b) a content related/methodological one, c) a reductionist one, d) a nihilistic one.

The first points out that the discussed branch of science exists, that its final stabilization took place in the years 1967-1979. That opinion is proclaimed by Wojciech Lipoński (an English philologist), who is supported by Zbigniew Krawczyk (a sociologist of culture, an outstanding sociologist of sport, he dealt also with philosophical aspects of sport, 1995, 1997a, 1997b), Stanisław Kowalczyk (an outstanding catholic philosopher, he expressed his opinions also on the philosophy and theology of sport 2002, 2007). That viewpoint, according to my exploratory talks, is shared by a majority of members of the British Philosophy of Sport Association, the European Association for the Philosophy of Sport and the International Association for the Philosophy of Sport, mainly because of lack of proper preparation - that is, philosophical education.

The discussed standpoint has a commonsense character, since it does not tale into account the real level of contents of the philosophy of sport and relations taking place between it and general philosophy. It emphasizes only the first of the abovementioned requirements (the structural-functional one). Nobody of the abovementioned proponents of the first standpoint is aware of the need of meeting the two others of the abovementioned requirements - the content related one and the methodological one.

An exception in that respect is Rev. Stanisław Kowalczyk, who admittedly raises issues connected with those two others requirements, but the contexts of justification he has formulated have - especially in the content related respect - a commonsense character. Nota bene, statements of a similar character on fundamental issues happened even to the greatest philosophers, among others to Hegel. Moreover Kowalczyk considers also (although in a disputable way) methodological issues concerning methodological foundations of the philosophy of sport. Because of the fact that I do not agree with both content related and methodological argumentation of the great Catholic philosophers, I devote more space to a polemic against him - that is, justification of my standpoint - in the subsequent part of the text.

The second standpoint is expressed by Jerzy Kosiewicz. It is shared by, among others, Ivo Jirasek, Scott R. Kretchmar, Jim S. Perry, Arno Muller (it refers to arguments comprised in that text in part III and presented also in presence of the abovementioned persons during the conference of the IAPS in Olomouc in 2005). It assumes that the philosophy of sport exists, but solely in the institutional-organisational (structural-functional) sense. However, because of content related and methodological reasons, it is still in an early phase of development and hence we more have to do in that respect with philosophical reflection on sport - that is, in that case, with application of assumptions and issues from the field of general philosophy and specialized philosophies to ideography, explaining, understanding and evaluating phenomena as well as theoretical and practical activity connected with sport - than with the philosophy of sport in the strict sense of the word.

The third viewpoint suggests that the philosophy of sport has not come into existence yet. McFee in one part of his text entitled Do we need a philosophy of sport? (in: Are There Philosophical Issues Respect to Sport (Other Than Ethical Ones), 1998, pp. 3-18) undermines the sense of its existence. He wonders if it is needed at all and he proclaims, after a long argument, that it is not. He proclaims, not without a reason, that if in the process of creating the philosophy of sport we have to do solely with application of philosophy for reflection on sport, so, as a matter of fact, the philosophy of sport as such is not needed at all. The general philosophy will suffice as a theoretical foundation for reflection on sport, for explaining and understanding its sense, meaning, essence, cultural and biological background, social and psychological mechanisms, needs, motives, etc.

I suppose that working on that assumption we have to do rather with philosophical reflection on sport than with any form of the philosophy of sport. Nevertheless, the precondition of existence of the philosophy of sport in the strict sense of the word is referring to achievements of the whole philosophy. And philosophical reflection on sport is the first step on the road to creation of a fully autonomous and mature philosophy of sport.

Hence, I do not share the final McFee's conclusion included in the discussed text and proclaiming that the philosophy of sport as such is not needed, since each newly born philosophical branch goes through the application period, but, sooner or later, it breaks free from that initial content related and methodological dependence. It has also a right for its own academic name since the very beginning.

The fourth standpoint has a radical character. It proclaims categorically that any philosophical reflection on sport is unnecessary - similarly as neither the philosophy of railroading, nor the philosophy of transport as such, nor the philosophy of mining or carpentry are needed. It is proclaimed that there are such fields which may do without philosophy and which do not need philosophy for anything. They allegedly include physical activity, activity in the field of physical culture. That view is proclaimed and supported by, among others. Henning Eichberg and Ejgil Jespersen.

Author is not a proponent of that viewpoint, because physical culture and sport, among others because of their significance and range of social, cultural, health-related or axiological influences, implicate indubitably the need of cognitive studies of a philosophical character which should be continuously deepened and widened.

Defining organizational-institutional, content related and methodological deficiencies characteristic for the philosophy of sport Authors points out to barriers which must be overcome to enable its further development. It is facilitated by defining its identity. Author thinks at the first about institutional-organisational difficulties:

1. The philosophy of sport has not appeared in structures of many scientific and didactic institutions closely connected with sport.

2. Neither she is present in syllabuses and didactic of many of the abovementioned institutions.

3. About 85% of members the international, the British and the European association of philosophy of sport - as well as participants of conferences on the subject and research projects and teams - have no philosophical education.

4. Many former chairpersons of scientific associations in Europe and outside had no philosophical education. A majority of them played a remarkable organizational and institutional role connected with promoting and strengthening the status of the philosophy of sport. However, their activity only indirectly and insufficiently facilitated development of that philosophy in the content related and methodological sense.

5. The strictly philosophical milieu manifests poor interest in the philosophy of sport. A percentage of persons from that milieu who carry out studies connected with it or express their opinions about it are too low.

He thinks also that it is possible to distinguish the following content related and methodological deficiencies characteristic for the philosophy of sport:

1. Shortage of original assumptions and issues, which have been worked out solely on the ground of the philosophy of sport and are characteristic only for that discipline.

2. The discussed philosophy uses only languages of general philosophy and other specialised philosophies, referring to their terms, notions, categories, branches, circles, schools, currents, periods, ages, assumptions, issues, etc.

3. There is no feedback influence on general philosophy and specialised philosophies.

4. Literature on the philosophy of sport has introductory (initial) and applicative qualities.

5. Because of the abovementioned reasons, the philosophy of sport does not meet the fifth, the sixth and the seventh methodological condition concerning becoming independent from the abovementioned application and working out its own, specific assumptions and issues, as well as feedback influence. That is because such a situation makes it impossible to confirm not only its autonomy, but also its maturity.

6. Sports sciences (which, treated in a broader or different way, can be called physical culture sciences) have no common and coherent content related and methodological basis. They are very varied in that respect. It makes impossible coherent sublimation of that science in the form of the philosophy of sport. In that case, the first methodological criterion (according to S. Kamiński's interpretation), concerning its autonomy, is not fulfilled, because the subject of its interest connected with sports sciences has not been defined.

7. The fact that the philosophy of sport is not cognitively advanced (that is, there are no significant results of practising it), and that there are no means connected with the discussed activity (that is, a specialised methodology) and facilitating its development, causes that it is neither autonomous, nor mature from the viewpoint of the second methodological criterion according to Kamiński's interpretation.

8. A low level of meta-scientific self-definition of the philosophy of sport causes that the third methodological criterion according to Kamiński's interpretation, concerning self-reliance, is not fulfilled.

One of reasons of the abovementioned immaturity and lack of autonomy of the philosophy of sport is also lack of necessary research-related competences (the eighth criterion concerning specialized methodology is not fulfilled). It refers, on the one hand, to superficial and commonsense character of knowledge about phenomena and issues concerning sport - including knowledge from the field of sports sciences - and, on the other hand, to improper preparation, education and philosophical competences.

Ajdukiewicz, K. (1985). Metodologiczne typy nauk /Methodological Types of Sciences/. In Ajdukiewicz K., Język i poznanie /Language and Cognition/. Warszawa: PWN.

Amsterdamski, S. (1964). Ilość i jakość /Quantity and Quality/. In Amsterdamski, S., Engels. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna.

Amsterdamski, S. (1981). Życie naukowe a monopol władzy (casus Łysenko) /Scientific Life and Monopoly of Power (Lysenko's Case)/. Warszawa: Towarzystwo Kursów Naukowych. Wykłady, Wydawnictwo Nowa.

Arnold, J. (1979). Meaning in Movement, Sport and Physical Education. London: Heinemann Education Book Ltd.

Arystoteles (1988). O duszy /On Soul/. Warszawa: PWN.

Bertalanffy, von L. (1973). General System Theory. Foundations, Development, Applications by Ludwig von Bertalanffy. New York.

Bertalanffy, von L. (1984). Ogólna teoria systemu /General System Theory/. Warszawa: PWN.

Best, D. (1978). Philosophy and Human Movement. London: Allen and Unwin.

Carnap, R. (1973). Neopozytywistyczna koncepcja weryfikacji w ujęciu Carnapa /Neo-Positivistic Conception of Verification according to Carnap's Interpretation/. In Mejbaum B., Mejbaum W. (Eds.) Główne zagadnienia filozofii i socjologii marksistowskiej /Main Issues of Marxist Philosophy and Sociology/. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Akademia Medyczna.

Carnap, R. (1969). Sprawdzalność i znaczenie /Testability and Meaning/. In Carnap R., Filozofia jako analiza języka nauki /Philosophy as Analysis of Language of Science/. Warszawa: PWN.

Descartes, R. (1958). Medytacje o pierwszej filozofii /Meditations on First Philosophy/. Warszawa: PWN.

Descartes, R. (1986). Namiętności duszy /Soul's Passion/. Warszawa: PWN.

Domański, J. (1996). Metamorfozy pojęcia filozofii. Od antyku do renesansu /Metamorphoses of the Notion of Philosophy. From Antiquity to Renaissance/. Warszawa: PWN.

Domański, J. (1996). La philosophie, theorie ou maniere de vivre? Les Controverses de l 'Antiquite a la Renaissance, avec une Preface de Piere Hadot. Fribourg-Paris.

Engels, F. (1953). Dialektyka przyrody /Dialectics of Nature/. Warszawa: Książka i Wiedza.

Engels, F. (1949). Anty-Duhring. Pan Duhring dokonuje przewrotu w nauce /Anti-Duhring/. Warszawa: Książka i Wiedza.

Freud, S. (1982). Wstęp do psychoanalizy /Introduction to Psychoanalysis/. Warszawa: PWN.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1963). Fenomenologia ducha /The Phenomenology of Spirit/. Warszawa: PWN.

Heidegger, M. (1994). Bycie i czas /Being and Time/. Warszawa: PWN.

Hobbes, T. (1839). Human Nature. In The English Works of Thomas Hobbes (Ed. W. Molesworth) London.

Hyland, D. A. (1994). Philosophy of Sport. Maryland: University Press of America.

Informator filozofii polskiej /Guidebook of Polish Philosophy/ (2004). Principia XL, Kraków.

Ingenkamp, H. G. (1967). Untersuchungen zu den pseudo-platonischen Definitionen. Wiesbaden.

Journal of the Philosophy of Sport (2006). vol. XXIII, issue 2.

Kamiński, S. (1992). Metoda i nauka. Pojęcie nauki i klasyfikacja nauk /Method and Science. The Notion of Science and Classification of Sciences/. Lublin: KUL.

Kołakowski, L. (2000). Zakresowe i funkcjonalne rozumienie filozofii /Scope-Related and Functional Conception of Philosophy/. In Kołakowski L. Kultura i fetysze /Culture and Fetishes/. Warszawa: PWN.

Kosiewicz, J. (1982). Physical Activity as Reflected by Phenomenology. International Review of Sport Sociology, no. 4.

Kosiewicz, J., Krawczyk, Z., Lipiec, J. (1995). Filozofia sportu czy filozoficzny namysł nad sportem /Philosophy of Sport or Philosophical Reflection on Sport/. Kultura Fizyczna, no. 9-10.

Kosiewicz, J., Krawczyk, Z. (1997). Philosophy of Sport or Philosophical Reflection over Sport. In Philosophy of Physical Culture. Olomouc: University of Olomouc.

Kosiewicz, J. (1999a). Filozoficzna wykładnia idei olimpizmu /Philosophical Interpretation of the Idea of Olympism/. Edukacja Filozoficzna, no. 27, pp. 340-347.

Kosiewicz, J. (1999b). O idei olimpijskiej filozoficznie /On Olympic Idea in a Philosophical Way/. Literatura, no. 4. p. 59.

Kosiewicz, J. (2004a). Filozofia kultury fizycznej czy filozoficzny namysł nad sportem /Philosophy of Physical Culture or Philosophical Reflection on Sport/. In Filozoficzne aspekty kultury fizycznej i sportu /Philosophical Aspects of Physical Culture and Sport/. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo BK.

Kosiewicz, J. (2004b). Sport i powszechniki - od nominalizmu do aleatoryzmu /Sport and Universals - from Nominalism to Aleatorism. In Filozoficzne aspekty kultury fizycznej i sportu /Phylosophical Aspects of Physical Culture ans Sport/. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo BK.

Kosiewicz, J. (2004c). The Universals of Sport - from Realism to Nominalism. In Philosophy of Sport and Other Essays (eds. Macura D., Hosta M.). Ljubljana: Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana.

Kosiewicz, J. (2004d). Struktura widowiska sportowego /Structure of Sports Spectacle/. In Filozoficzne aspekty kultury fizycznej i sportu /Philosophical Aspects of Physical Culture and Sport/. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo BK.

Kosiewicz, J. (2004e). Widowisko sportowe w świetle założeń aleatoryzmu - stałe i przypadkowe elementy struktury spektaklu /Sports Spectacle in the Light of Assumptions of Aleatorism - Constant and Accidental Elements of Its Structure/. In Kosiewicz J. Filozoficzne aspekty kultury fizycznej i sportu /Philosophical Aspects of Physical Culture and Sport/. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo BK.

Kosiewicz, J. (2004f). Hegel - człowiek jako niezbędne centralne ogniwo w procesie samorealizacji Absolutu /Hegel - Man as the Necessary Central Link in the Process of Self-Realisation of the Absolute/. Roczniki Naukowe AWF vol. XLII, Warszawa.

Kosiewicz, J. (2005a). Sport in the Reflection of Philosophy. Research Yearbook. Studies in Physical Education and Sport, Vol. 11, Gdańsk.

Kosiewicz, J. (2005b). Philosophy of Sport or Philosophical Reflection on Sport. Acta Facultatis Educatonis Physicae Universitatis Comenianae. t. XLVI, Bratysława.

Kosiewicz, J. (2006a). Filozofia sportu czy filozoficzny namysł nad sportem - nowe ujęcie /Philosophy of Sport or Philosophical Reflection on Sport - a New Interpretation/. Ido. Ruch dla Kultury, t. VI.

Kosiewicz, J. (2006b). Boxing Fight as a Manifestation of Movement Towards Absolute Abstraction. Moving Body, Norges IdrettsHogskole.

Kosiewicz, J. (2006c). Czas wolny w perspektywie epistemologii i ontologii czasu /Free Time from the Perspective of Ontology and Epistemology of Time/. Roczniki Naukowe AWF, vol. VLIV.

Kosiewicz, J. (2007). Free Time from the Perspective of Ontology and Epistemology of Time. In Socio-economic Aspects of Tourism and Recreation, Dąbrowski, A., Rowiński, R. (Eds.). Warsaw: AWF.

Krawczyk, Z., Kosiewicz, J. (1990). Filozofia kultury fizycznej. Koncepcje i problemy /Philosophy of Physical Culture. Conceptions and Problems/. Warszawa: AWF.

Krawczyk, Z., Kosiewicz, J. (1997). Refleksje o filozofii sportu /Reflections on the Philosophy of Sport/. In Dziubiński Z. (Ed.) Teologia i filozofia sportu /Theology and Philosophy of Sport/. Warszawa: SALOS.

Kowalczyk, S. (2002). Elementy filozofii i teologii sportu /Elements of Philosophy and Theology of Sport/. Lublin: KUL.

Kowalczyk, S. (2007). Czy istnieje filozofia sportu? /Does the Philosophy of Sport Exist?/ Ido. Ruch dla Kultury, vol. VII.

Kraszewski, Z. (1975). O sporach naukowych /On Scientific Disputes/. In Kraszewski Z. Logika, nauka rozumowania /Logic, Learning to Reason/. Warszawa: KUL.

Kretchmar, R. S. (1994). Practical Philosophy of Sport. Illinois: Human Kinetics.

Kretchmar, R. S. (2005). Practical Philosophy of Sport and Physical Activity. Champaign USA: Human Kinetics.

Krokiewicz, A. (1995). Zarys filozofii greckiej. Od Talesa do Platona. Arystoteles, Pirron i Plotyn /An Outline of Greek Philosophy. From Thales to Plato. Aristotle, Pirron and Plotinus. Warszawa: Aletheia.

Kuczyński, J. (1990). Gra jako negacja i tworzenie świata /Game as Negation and Creation of the World/. In Krawczyk Z., Kosiewicz J. (Eds.) Filozofia kultury fizycznej. Koncepcje i problemy /Philosophy of Physical Culture. Conceptions and Problems/. vol. 2. Warszawa: AWF.

Lenk, H. (1969). Social Philosophy of Athletic. Illinois: Stipes Publishing.

Lenk, H. (Ed.). (1983). Topical of Sport. Schorndorf: Velag Karl Hoffman.

Lenk, H. (1982). Prolegomena Toward an Analytic Philosophy of Sport. International Journal of Physical Education, 19 p. 15.

Lenk, H. (1988). Towards a Social Philosophy of Achievement and Athletic, In Morgan, W. J. and Meier, K. V. (Eds.), Philosophic inquiry in sport. Champaign: Human Kinetics Publishers.

Lipiec, J. (1999). Filozofia olimpizmu /Philosophy of Olympism/. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Sportowe SPRINT.

Lorenz, K. (1977). Odwrotna strona zwierciadła. Próba historii naturalnej ludzkiego poznania /The Reverse Side of the Mirror - an Attempted Natural History of Human Cognition/. Warszawa: PIW.

McFee, G. (1998). Are There Philosophical Issues Respect to sport (Other than Ethical Ones). In Ethics and Sport (Ed. by McNamee M., Perry S. J.). London and New York: Spon Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

McFee, G. (2006). Searching for Truth in Sport and Exercise Sciences. European Journal of Sport Science, Vol. 6, no 1. Taylor and Francis Ltd.

McFee, G. (2007). Paradigms and Possibilities: Or, Some Concerns for the Study of Sport from the Philosophy of Science. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy. Official Journal of the British Philosophy of Sport Association, Vol. 1, no 1. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

Misiuna, B., Przyłuska-Fiszer, A. (1993). Etyczne aspekty sportu /Ethical Aspects of Sport/. Warszawa: AWF.

La Mettrie, J. O. de (1748). L'homme machine.

La Mettrie, J. O. De (1984). Człowiek - maszyna /Man - Machine/. Warszawa: PWN.

Pomponazzi, O. (1980). O nieśmiertelności duszy /On Immortality of the Soul/. Warszawa: PWN.

Pseudo-Platon (1973). Alkibiades i inne dialogi oraz Definicje /Alkibiades and Other Dialogues. Definitions/. Warszawa: PWN.

Read, H. (2007). Sport as Philosophy. Presidential Address to the IAPS 2007. Unpublished. An address delivered during the conference of the IAPS in Ljubljana in 2007.

Religia /Religion/ (2002). vol. 6, Warszawa: PWN.

Sartre, J.-P. (1956). Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. Philosophical Library.

Sartre, J.-P. (1943). L'etre le neant: Essai d'ontologie phenomenologique. Paris: Galimard.

Skwarczyńska, S. (1978). Współczesna teoria literatury /Contemporary Theory of Literature/. Warszawa: PWN.

Slusher, H. S. (1967). Man, Sport and Existence: Critical Analysis. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger.

Suits, B. (1978). The Grasshopper; Life and Utopia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Thomas, E. C. (1983). Sport in a Philosophic Context. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger.

Wójcicki, R. (1982). Cztery rodzaje zagadnień metodologicznych /Four Kinds of Methodological Issues/. In Wójcicki R., Wykłady z metodologii nauk. Warszawa: PWN.

Physical Culture and Sport. Studies and Research

The Journal of Josef Pilsudski University of Physical Education in Warsaw and International Society for the Social Sciences of Sport

Journal Information

CiteScore 2017: 0.18

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.138
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.181

Cited By


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 129 129 7
PDF Downloads 46 46 4