E-Thesis 85 views
Reconstituting Constitutive Rules: A critique of method for the philosophy of sport / GORDON BIRSE
Swansea University Author: GORDON BIRSE
Abstract
This thesis develops a critique of method for the philosophy of sport through a close examination of the work of the most influential figure in the discipline. I argue that there is an unresolved tension in Bernard Suits’ (2014[1978]) philosophical method between three different and incompatible ver...
| Published: |
Swansea University, Wales, UK.
2024
|
|---|---|
| Institution: | Swansea University |
| Degree level: | Doctoral |
| Degree name: | Ph.D |
| Supervisor: | Devine, J. W., and McNamee, M. |
| URI: | https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa70132 |
| Abstract: |
This thesis develops a critique of method for the philosophy of sport through a close examination of the work of the most influential figure in the discipline. I argue that there is an unresolved tension in Bernard Suits’ (2014[1978]) philosophical method between three different and incompatible versions of ‘conceptual analysis’. Suits claims that his definition elucidates pre-reflective intuitions of a kind that could, in principle, be shared by any competent language user (Descriptive Analysis). On the other hand, he maintains that the definition captures the extralinguistic nature or essence of games in a sense that may radically diverge from our ordinary understanding, so that his account replaces ‘our’ concept with a new ‘revised’ or ‘re-engineered’ version (Revisionist Analysis). Within the Revisionist approach, there is a further ambiguity about why the revised concept is supposed to be superior: is it because it more accurately describes hidden facts about the nature of games (Epistemic Revision) or because instituting the revised conceptual practice is normatively desirable(Ameliorative Revision)? On the Epistemic view, the proposal is beholden to independent factsabout the nature of game-playing, while on the Ameliorative view the ‘facts’ are extrapolated backwards from a free-standing normative or political goal. I conclude that the outcome of thismethodological mélange is not a ‘win-win’ but a ‘lose-lose’ for Suits: the descriptive strand falsifies our actual concepts and the revisionist strand involves engineering a new concept which is neither epistemically nor normatively superior to the original. Due in part to Suits’ systematically acontextual approach, the revised concept is discontinuous with respect to the ‘point’ that the original conceptual practice serves in our lives so the proposed conceptual revision cannot credibly be claimed either to reflect or to serve that point ‘better’ than the original. The implications of this critique extend beyond sport to challenge several influential methodological tendencies in contemporary philosophy: the privileging of abstract theoretical knowledge over practical understanding, the separation of descriptive from normative inquiry, and the analysis of social phenomena in individualistic terms. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: |
Due to Embargo and/or Third Party Copyright restrictions, this thesis is not available via this service. |
| Keywords: |
Philosophy of Sport; Games; Bernard Suits; Wittgenstein; Philosophical Methodology; Definitions. |
| College: |
Faculty of Science and Engineering |