zarys teorii idei relatywizmowi sofistów przeciwstawiał się sokrates ( żeby dobrze postępować, trzeba według niego umieć rozpoznać dobro. dobro. Arystoteles, , Metafizyka, tłum. K. Leśniak, Warszawa. Arystoteles, , O duszy, tłum. P. Siwek, Warszawa. Arystoteles, , Retoryka. Weltego, z drugiej rozjaśnia samo zagadnienie mistyki, o które tu chodzi. .. dniowiecznych myślicieli do tego, co nazywali najwyższą władzą duszy, czyli. 2 Przekład tego fragmentu (b 26) za: Arystoteles,
|Published (Last):||4 August 2008|
|PDF File Size:||12.96 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.15 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
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: The first points out that the discussed branch of science exists, that its final stabilization took place in the years 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. Nota benestatements of a similar character on fundamental issues happened even to the greatest philosophers, among others to Hegel. Moreover Arysroteles 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 arysyoteles 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.
Corpus Aristotelicum – Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
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 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?
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:. The philosophy of sport has not appeared in structures of many scientific and didactic institutions closely connected with sport. 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. 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:.
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.
The oo philosophy uses only languages of general philosophy and other specialised philosophies, referring to their terms, notions, categories, branches, circles, schools, currents, periods, ages, assumptions, arystoyeles, etc. 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 arystotelws, as well as feedback influence.
That is because such a arystotelez makes it impossible to confirm not only its autonomy, but also its maturity. 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. 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.
Meaning in Movement, Sport and Physical Education. Heinemann Education Book Duazy.
Foundations, Development, Applications by Ludwig von Bertalanffy. Philosophy and Human Movement. La philosophie, theorie ou maniere de vivre? University Press of America. Untersuchungen zu den pseudo-platonischen Definitionen. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport Physical Activity as Reflected by Phenomenology.
International Review of Sport Sociologyno. Kultura Fizycznano. Philosophy of Sport or Philosophical Reflection over Sport. In Philosophy of Physical Culture. Edukacja Filozoficznano. The Universals of Sport – from Realism to Nominalism.
O duszy: Arystoteles, Tomasz z Akwinu – Google Books
In Philosophy of Sport and Other Essays eds. Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana. Djszy Naukowe AWF vol. Sport in the Reflection of Philosophy. Studies in Physical Education and SportVol. Philosophy of Sport or Philosophical Reflection on Sport. Ruch dla Kulturyt. Moving BodyNorges IdrettsHogskole.
Roczniki Naukowe AWFvol. Czy istnieje filozofia sportu?
Ruch dla Kulturyvol. Practical Philosophy of Sport. Practical Philosophy of Sport and Physical Activity. Od Talesa do Platona. From Thales to Plato. Aristotle, Pirron and Plotinus. Social Philosophy of Athletic. Prolegomena Toward an Analytic Philosophy of Sport. International Journal of Physical Education19 p. In Ethics and Sport Ed.
London and New York: Searching for Truth in Sport and Exercise Sciences. European Journal of Sport ScienceVol. Taylor and Francis Ltd. Sport, Ethics and Dhszy. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. Man, Sport and Existence: The Grasshopper; Life and Utopia. University of Toronto Press. Sport in a Philosophic Context.