No Cover Image

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...

Full description

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
first_indexed 2025-08-07T16:01:41Z
last_indexed 2025-09-17T05:52:26Z
id cronfa70132
recordtype RisThesis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2025-09-16T15:30:19.7006653</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>70132</id><entry>2025-08-07</entry><title>Reconstituting Constitutive Rules: A critique of method for the philosophy of sport</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>a3ead90598f2d971eae19571a9182e25</sid><firstname>GORDON</firstname><surname>BIRSE</surname><name>GORDON BIRSE</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2025-08-07</date><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&#x2019; (2014[1978]) philosophical method between three different and incompatible versions of &#x2018;conceptual analysis&#x2019;. 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 &#x2018;our&#x2019; concept with a new &#x2018;revised&#x2019; or &#x2018;re-engineered&#x2019; 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 &#x2018;facts&#x2019; are extrapolated backwards from a free-standing normative or political goal. I conclude that the outcome of thismethodological m&#xE9;lange is not a &#x2018;win-win&#x2019; but a &#x2018;lose-lose&#x2019; 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&#x2019; systematically acontextual approach, the revised concept is discontinuous with respect to the &#x2018;point&#x2019; 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 &#x2018;better&#x2019; 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.</abstract><type>E-Thesis</type><journal/><volume/><journalNumber/><paginationStart/><paginationEnd/><publisher/><placeOfPublication>Swansea University, Wales, UK.</placeOfPublication><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic/><keywords>Philosophy of Sport; Games; Bernard Suits; Wittgenstein; Philosophical Methodology; Definitions.</keywords><publishedDay>31</publishedDay><publishedMonth>1</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2024</publishedYear><publishedDate>2024-01-31</publishedDate><doi/><url/><notes>Due to Embargo and/or Third Party Copyright restrictions, this thesis is not available via this service.</notes><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><supervisor>Devine, J. W., and McNamee, M.</supervisor><degreelevel>Doctoral</degreelevel><degreename>Ph.D</degreename><apcterm/><funders/><projectreference/><lastEdited>2025-09-16T15:30:19.7006653</lastEdited><Created>2025-08-07T16:03:53.6386854</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Science and Engineering</level><level id="2">School of Engineering and Applied Sciences - Sport and Exercise Sciences</level></path><authors><author><firstname>GORDON</firstname><surname>BIRSE</surname><order>1</order></author></authors><documents/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2025-09-16T15:30:19.7006653 v2 70132 2025-08-07 Reconstituting Constitutive Rules: A critique of method for the philosophy of sport a3ead90598f2d971eae19571a9182e25 GORDON BIRSE GORDON BIRSE true false 2025-08-07 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. E-Thesis Swansea University, Wales, UK. Philosophy of Sport; Games; Bernard Suits; Wittgenstein; Philosophical Methodology; Definitions. 31 1 2024 2024-01-31 Due to Embargo and/or Third Party Copyright restrictions, this thesis is not available via this service. COLLEGE NANME COLLEGE CODE Swansea University Devine, J. W., and McNamee, M. Doctoral Ph.D 2025-09-16T15:30:19.7006653 2025-08-07T16:03:53.6386854 Faculty of Science and Engineering School of Engineering and Applied Sciences - Sport and Exercise Sciences GORDON BIRSE 1
title Reconstituting Constitutive Rules: A critique of method for the philosophy of sport
spellingShingle Reconstituting Constitutive Rules: A critique of method for the philosophy of sport
GORDON BIRSE
title_short Reconstituting Constitutive Rules: A critique of method for the philosophy of sport
title_full Reconstituting Constitutive Rules: A critique of method for the philosophy of sport
title_fullStr Reconstituting Constitutive Rules: A critique of method for the philosophy of sport
title_full_unstemmed Reconstituting Constitutive Rules: A critique of method for the philosophy of sport
title_sort Reconstituting Constitutive Rules: A critique of method for the philosophy of sport
author_id_str_mv a3ead90598f2d971eae19571a9182e25
author_id_fullname_str_mv a3ead90598f2d971eae19571a9182e25_***_GORDON BIRSE
author GORDON BIRSE
author2 GORDON BIRSE
format E-Thesis
publishDate 2024
institution Swansea University
college_str Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Science and Engineering
department_str School of Engineering and Applied Sciences - Sport and Exercise Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Science and Engineering{{{_:::_}}}School of Engineering and Applied Sciences - Sport and Exercise Sciences
document_store_str 0
active_str 0
description 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.
published_date 2024-01-31T05:30:03Z
_version_ 1851097983072862208
score 11.089386

Similar Items