Drawing on a discussion of major theoretical perspectives in Essay

Drawing on a discussion of major theoretical perspectives in philisophy, and developing your own philosophical arguments, critic - Essay Example In undertaking this task, the writer is aware that one cannot fully encapsulate in one setting the entirety of the notion of sports, however, it hopes that as the paper continues some of the vagueness that some of the attributes inhering the concept may be clarified and establish a clearer notion of sports. SPORTS: WHAT IS IT? Morgan (1976) has looked into the discussion between Huizinga and Gerber regarding the notion of play, which , in turn paves for the possibility for the ontology of ports. Huizinga looks into sports as play (Morgan, 1976). In this signification, one can see the equivalence that is juxtaposed between sports and play. According to Morgan (1976), for Huizing ,play is â€Å"an irreducible facet of life whose meaning resides within itself and is not, therefore, contingent on any end it is instrumentally employed, quite incidentally and perhaps inauthentically, to bring about† (p. 25). This whole concept offers the supposition that play is something that is â €Å"non-real† and â€Å"non serious†, a â€Å"free activity standing quite consciously outside ordinary life. If this kind of reasoning is pursued and associated with sports considering that there is a presupposition that Huizinga is looking at sports a play, it opens the notion that sport ahs intrinsic value that is or used not because of any extenuating factors that influence the players, but it is engaged in for its own sake. At this point Gerber, argued that there is seeming misunderstanding of the concept of ‘to be’ in Huizinga’s concept of ‘play is nonreal’ (Morgan,1976). She maintains that there is no ontological impossibility in assuming that play is non real since how can a real person be in play and yet at the same time maintain there is ‘non realness’ in the experience. Morgan (1976) untangling g the dilemma, proposes the position that the term ‘to be’ in the statement â€Å"play is non real† is to be understood as not referring to existential ‘is’, but should be understood in the context of the Platonic ‘to be’ which, is a signifier for differentiation and variation but not necessarily referring to existence. This means that the ‘to be’ is not an existential is which denotes the notion that there is no question pertaining to the idea of realness in connection with existing. This position is further supported by the Heideggerian distinction between the ontic and ontology . as a point of clarification, ontic is knowledge base on the actual experience whereas the Heideggerian ontology refers to a prior experience of the phenomenon that allows for the formulation of the criterion that enables one to understand the events not because one has experienced, but because one has extracted from the categories, which makes the phenomenon what it is, and in this sense the phenomenon is play. In this regard, Morgan(1976) has presupposed that Hu izinga has misappropriated the terms ‘non real’ when associated with play in the context that it is justified on the premise of the Heidegerrian ontic sense, yet it s is seeks to provide a way to come out with the ontological validity for the concept of play. Gerber has clearly noted this in the counter argument against Huizinga when she