#sports philosophy

[breizzle2]

Link to convo: https://www.nba.com/watch/video/giannis-antetokounmpo-failure-revisit-inside-the-nba-april-27?plsrc=nba&collection=hp-around-the-nba

I really appreciated this conversation. Ultimately this is about the absolute and relative nature of failure and the embodiment of said failure. I understand Shaq’s perspective, which is how I think many of the Greats view their craft. It’s quite binary -- a fail is a fail and a win is a win. However, these microexperiences do not determine if you yourself embody failure. I imagine it is impossible to be a great with the perspective that the experience of a fail equates to being the fail. And fails do not have to be inherently bad. Considering that you can win by means of what you learn through failure. Failures can be utilized to sculpt wins.

Giannis - I think there are in fact (absolute) failures in sports, right. That’s the game. There are wins and loses. However, that does not have to be the determining factor for greatness - which takes on a panoramic view. The question is, if you turn a failure into a tool for winning, is it still a failure? Absolutely, still yes. However, relatively, no. Experiences of failure do not define the individual as a failure. 

This was really helpful for me in my personal life. I’ve been going through some things that feel like fails. But this conversation reminds me to zoom out a bit and see the whole, myself, for what it is/I am. Just like I have the power to define what success is, I think it is equally important to define what failure isn’t. 

[theomenmedia]

Mike Tyson Posts A Grattitude-Filled Tweet Post His Bout With Jake Paul

Mike Tyson turns a boxing loss into a life lesson on resilience and gratitude. Despite the defeat, his message after facing Jake Paul is one of victory over adversity. Read more on how the boxing legend redefines winning.

[asliceofzosan]

i've seen figure skater sanji and hockey player zoro before. idk if its been explored but i'd love to put it out there:

hockey player sanji (specifically goalie bc he desperately wants to avoid being checked) and then pairs skater zoro.

pairs skater zoro's long time partner has been nami. though many people ship them together a Lot, they just know each other super well. Well enough to try dating and both of them realized they don't swing that way. in fact, it makes them a really good team. they fought long and hard to claim top spots in competitions because they portray a chemistry that's separate from the rest. plus zoro can carry nami like she weighs fucking nothing. so their lifts are so much more dynamic. they even have a whole next to impossible combination that they're trying to get the ISU to name after them officially.

sanji plays for the East Blue Straw Hats in the Grand Line Hockey League – a formidable rookie group that took down lots of big names in the preseason. they want to make it all the way to the postseason playoff finals but always seem to fall short. but theyre so determined. they reignited a lot of old sparks that were no longer there for old fans and brought in new and curious fans. sanji is the starter goalie and a damn good one at that. it makes sense bc goalies are often doing splits on the ice just to make a save. he's perfected the technique that utilizes just his legs to make saves that make the crowd go fuckin insane.

we have the usual "i booked the rink to practice before you did" trope but a little more spice. in actuality, sanji loves watching pairs skating competitions. his favorite pair rn is franky and robin (mostly for robin). and he adamantly does not want to admit to anyone that he watches zoro and nami's routines much more frequently. (and if anyone asks, he always says its bc of nami. its never just bc of nami.) and zoro's besties with luffy so he always watches their matches even if he barely understands the rules. and he definitely does not stare at a certain blond starter goalie most of the match thats fucking ridiculous

one day zoro and sanji are invited to do one of those comparison videos between hockey players and figure skaters. both get to laugh at the other even Attempting to do their sport. zoro frankly looks ridiculous in all of sanji's usual goalie get-up. and sanji couldn't land an euler to save his life. the video producer suggests they try a simple pairs skating routine. sanji is like "oh i couldn't do that–hEY WHAT THE FUCK MOSSHEAD PUT ME DOWN" because zoro lifted sanji and had him sat on his shoulder like it was normal.

zoro smirks, "you might be lighter than nami, actually. wanna be my new partner?"

sanji knees him in the stomach before skating away while blushing so hard he could melt the ice beneath him.

[mossspond]

It finally happened, I’ve finally digested enough F1 related content to have a vivid dream about being a driver 😂

[sakamotokaori]

the best approach to have towards team medals is if you like the skater then yaaaay olympic medal and if you dont say its fake and not real. you can actually do this for all other events too

[idontlikeem]

why am i nervous girl it’s game ONE it doesn’t MATTER

[poempoetryandmore]

let me be sad

let me take out my anger on myself

let me get absolutely wasted and do stupid things

let me cry

let me stand in the pouring rain

let me drown

please let me die

let me kill whatevers left inside of me after you

PLEASE LET ME

[bachirasbodyguard]

Shoutout to one of my favorite Blue Lock beefs. No cunning, no grace, no restraint with these two. Just throwing hands ON SIGHT. God bless.

also shoutout to Shidou for being the only person who actually makes Rin lose his composure like that (and so easily too). king

((this post by @bluelock-textposts inspired me))

[foxglves]

the thing about sports is no faith is faith wasted because- I could go into every game believing my team will lose and be proven right or I could go into every game believing my team will win and be proven wrong and either way it won't have any material effect on my life. and there's always a chance I'll go into a game believing my team will win and they'll prove me right, so I might as well take that chance.

[nco05]

ZOOM IN ON AITANA DURING THE CRUIJFF SEGMENT THAT'S RIGHT! THAT'S RIGHT!

[oh-my-damn]

Philosophy 101

Pairing: Jock!Steve Rogers x Sassy!Tutor!Reader

Status: Coming soon!

Summary: You've always been the smart girl. Be it in school or in life, but especially when it came to boys. You always steered clear of them, knowing they were nothing but trouble. Until a blue-eyed, muscular blonde turns your life upside down, and makes you question everything you thought you knew.

Word count: TBD

Warnings: Fluff, angst and smut (detailed warnings to be updated once the fic is posted)

The beautiful header is by my sweet bestie @justconfettiandsomeddew <3

The beautiful divider is by @firefly-graphics

SNEAK PEEK OF UPCOMING FIC UNDER THE CUT

You spent two hours tutoring Steve in the library until it was time for your morning class. For some inexplicable reason, it was like time flew by, and you didn't even realize it was time to leave before you noticed people filtering out of the library.

Steve had progressed tremendously even in the short span of two hours, and you had to give it to Professor Adler – he was right.

Steve wasn't an idiot, far from it actually, but you suspected he had a hard time prioritizing. You got the sense that his main concern was football, and you couldn't fault him for that, knowing that's the case for a lot of the guys at your school.

Steve is reading through a paragraph when you notice the time, making you gently whisper, "I think we need to wrap it up, class is starting soon."

His head lifts in surprise, his face turning towards you, "It is? What time is it?"

You inhale quietly when he turns to face you, those baby blues practically inches from your face as you sit next to him. Steve is beautiful in a different way than the usual jocks around here; he is clean-shaven, his features had an innocence to them while simultaneously being devastatingly manly and handsome.

It was hard to describe it, really, and it made you a bit enamored with him. You'd caught yourself watching him for the past two hours, subtly of course, to ensure he wouldn't notice. You'd had to hide your smile when you noticed the dent in his nose, disrupting the straight line of it, undoubtedly from a football injury.

You'd also caught yourself staring at his long lashes, fluttering and touching his cheek whenever he blinked. They were thick, too, such wasted potential on a guy who would never understand what a blessing they are.

You noticed the small beauty marks on his skin; littered across his face, down his neck, branding him in a delicate way. Part of you wanted to trace them, run your fingers over his skin to feel whether it would be as soft as it looked.

Even his blonde hair, unkempt and mussed up as it was, made you yearn to run your fingers through it. His expressive eyebrows, his high cheekbones, his sharp jawline; staring at Steve was undoubtedly more interesting than studying – he was like a work of art, so effortlessly gorgeous, you weren't even sure he realized.

Of course he does. A guy like that knows how hot he is. You can tell by the way his large biceps are visible even through the lumpy fabric of his hoodie, his thick thighs not well hidden by his sweats. He was built, tall, muscular; a handsome football player, of course he realizes how gorgeous he is.

You offer him a small smile, glancing toward the clock on your laptop, "It's 9.10. We have class at 9.30. And I need to get something to eat before, I think, or I don't know if I'll make it through."

Steve lets out a chuckle at your words, and the melodic sound warms your veins in a comforting way. He's got a great laugh, of course he would, that beautiful bastard.

"You have a point, getting through Professor Adler's class on an empty stomach is near impossible."

You nod, mirroring his chuckle, "Yeah, exactly. But we made great progress today, you'll be just fine for the test, Steve. You're all good." You smile as you get up from your seat to gather your things, and Steve watches you for a moment before he blurts out, "Oh, uh, I don't know, I think I need a little more tutoring, just-"

You shake your head as you chuckle, "No, really Steve, I think you'll be alright for the test. You know this stuff, you just need to be confident about it."

Steve frowns as he watches you pack your books in your bag, glancing down at the textbook in front of him. He hadn't even realized that two hours had passed, it was like being in a different world this entire time.

He's noticed you before, more times than he can count. Not just because you were the smartest girl in class, and constantly had your hand up, but also because you were strikingly beautiful, in an understated way that made him curious to know more about you.

He wasn't sure if you even realized how pretty you were, he had a suspicion you didn't, or that, even if you did, you simply didn't care.

And that was fascinating to Steve. It had been from the very moment he first saw you in freshman year.

[wordswhisperinthedark]

MEDALIST I AM HOLDING YOU SO TIGHTLY

[recurring-polynya]

i've been watching kuroko no basket and this green-haired dude has the upsetting vibes of an infinite jest character

[funky-sea-cryptid]

if you're about to do something you hate, ask yourself "is there enough time in this goddamn life to do this and to do something i love?" and if the answer is no, do not do it

[plusultraetc]

Saw the tags on the Toshinori post and do you have more to share?? Any insights? If so I’d welcome hearing them 😭 He really is so self-sacrificial and it hurts but it’s truly at the core of who he is

This has been sitting in my inbox for almost a week because I needed to make a futile effort at organizing my thoughts into something coherent--but this is as organized as they're going to get for now! Thank you so so much for the ask though bc I do love to yell about MHA <3

(Obligatory reminder that I'm watching this show in such a confusing order so if what I'm about to rant about has been addressed before and I'm harping on it unnecessarily I Am Sorry.)

(For anyone curious, this is the post btw)

SO. It feels relevant to mention that my sister and I were talking about All Might in the first place because we were talking about MHA Moments That Haunt Us. For me, it's the 'I am not here' sign hanging around the neck of the All Might statue in Kamino Ward after the Paranormal Liberation War. It literally lives in my brain rent-free 24/7 365 days a year, especially with the AM vs AFO fight being relatively fresh in my mind. The reversal of All Might's catchphrase and all it represents hurts, but to display it at the site of his 'last stand' in Kamino? That's brutal.

All Might vs All For One and how that rematch plays out is so so important to the story for so many reasons, but one of them is that the fight itself is a sacrifice. Toshinori gives everything he has, short of his life, to defeat All For One. He gives up his physical strength, his public image as the unbeatable Symbol of Peace, and, effectively his Quirk ("Goodbye, All For One. Goodbye, One For All" haunts my every waking moment, still!)

This battle is also the culmination of years of All Might's life and heroic philosophy (because Toshinori has been both practicing AND preaching self-sacrifice in the name of the greater good since we met him. It's what he thinks a hero does). Kamino is the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, if you will. Yes, he does get to walk away from the fight with AFO, but he walks away irrevocably different, almost unrecognizable. He's forced to totally change his focus and his mindset and his life. Everything he has given up is made literally visible in the deterioration of his body.

But most most importantly, All Might's sacrifice at Kamino was... all for nothing. Even if AM defeated him in that moment, All For One is free less than a year later. The world is in shambles. People are afraid, and their faith in heroes is crumbling. Heroes are afraid, and this time, they have no idealized symbol to rally behind. When Dostoevsky wrote "Your worst sin is that you have destroyed and betrayed yourself for nothing," he was talking about All Might btw.

Toshinori gave this fight (and his career, and being All Might) everything he had, and it still wasn't enough. He sacrificed so much of himself, and so much of how he perceived himself and his purpose, and he didn't even save the world. He just bought them time--and not much of it. I think that's why he's so desperate to keep fighting, no matter the cost, no matter what condition he's in--even 'quite literally half-dead.' He can't let Kamino be the Symbol of Peace's final stand, because Kamino was ultimately for nothing. Instead of saving the world, it has been reframed through the sign on the statue as All Might abandoning the world. And ever since then, he's been scrambling to prove that he is still here.

(There's also probably something here about Sir Nighteye telling him that he was going to die. Since Nighteye used his Quirk on him, Toshinori has been anticipating sacrificing his life for good. Knowing that his entire hero career is effectively a fight to the death has probably maximized his self-sacrificial tendencies.)

[spiderfreedom]

not gonna effortpost about this today because I gotta get work done but real short

I notice this argument being used all the time: "you can't make a definition of 'woman' that does not exclude some people that we call women. therefore, the only good definition for 'women' that includes all people we call woman is 'people who identify as woman.'"

and the thing is, philosophically, "you can't make a definition of {thing} that does not exclude some examples we also call {thing}" is something that applies to almost every category! it's literally a whole philosophical problem of "what is the definition of a chair?" didn't we have a whole meme about how nobody can even agree on what a sandwich is?

it's not something unique to women, tables, horses, sandwiches, salads, or anything else. it is a problem of language itself.

you can apply the exact same argument to other categories: "how do you define 'blackness' without excluding some people we call 'black'?" if you're american, maybe you will use the one-drop rule, in which case halsey is black and anyone who had a single black ancestor four generations ago. but is that actually how we use the word black? does that capture something meaningful about being black in america? how about being black in the world?

let's go further: "how do you define 'transgender' without excluding some people we call 'transgender'?" within the transgender community, there is no real agreement on what it means to be transgender! beyond a vague sense of "identifying as the gender society assigned to you", but even that can be challenged. if a cis (female) woman takes testosterone, starts hanging around trans women, calling herself a trans woman, is confused for a trans woman by the people that she talks to, experiences oppression on the basis of being perceived as a trans woman... can she be considered a trans woman, despite being female?

ultimately "how do you define things" is a philosophy of language question more than anything else. perfect definitions that encapsulate sets neatly do not exist, because the terms we use are socially contingent. when people came up with the word 'table', they didn't also create a logically rigorous definition for it. they just said 'well, this thing here is a table.' and then people argue about the edge cases. because also, nobody actually agrees on the members of sets of every single word!! just like how we all have different ideas of what is and isn't a sandwich!

that's the other thing, people already disagree about what words refer to. someone who has the 5ARD intersex condition has testes but may be raised and socialized as girl because their parents think their genitals kinda look like a vulva. is this person a 'girl/woman'? people are not sure... which makes sense... because it is an edge case. is a stool a chair? is a hotdog a sandwich? is an open sandwich a sandwich? the further you get from the 'prototype', the more people are going to be disagree.

so the entire question 'what is a woman' is just an exercise in confusing philosophy of language framed as saying something very meaningful about the social category of woman. it is not! it is a problem of language that we cannot define 'woman' or 'chair' or 'salad' or 'horse' or 'gamer' in a rigorous way. it is nothing inherent to women, chairs, salads, horses, or gamers.

(but what about science?) good question, what about science? science tries to operate differently from the way laypeople talk about things. scientists take common words, like 'energy', and give them different, more rigorous definitions in order to try to figure something out about the world. for laypeople, 'energy' is something vague and diffuse. for physicists, 'energy' is the force that causes things to move, and its behavior is described by certain mathematical models.

similarly, laypeople may take 'woman' to mean 'a person with breasts and vulva/vagina', but a biologist may have a more rigorous definition of 'female': 'producing large gametes.' this is useful because it helps us see commonalities between creatures that may look really different, like flowers, bedbugs, asparaguses, cats, and humans - all very different creatures where sex looks different, but still have a distinction between 'producing large gametes' and 'producing small gametes' - there's no intermediate gamete. biologists have a different word for what people/animals look like, and that is 'phenotype.' when a parent looks at a child with 5ARD condition, they see the child has no visible penis and thus 'looks 'looks female.' a biologist would say that the child's sex is male (because they have the reproductive equipment to produce sperm, and none of the reproductive equipment to produce ova) but that their phenotype is ambiguous. sex is a binary variable, but human development is a long process where are a lot can happen, and so sexual phenotypes are not variable.

so already we're pretty far from the lay definition, because laypeople don't have the same idea of what sex is as scientists do, and don't distinguish between someone's sex and their appearance - for them, the sex is the appearance. who is right? it depends on what you want to do. scientists want to discover meaningful things about nature, and their definitions are far more useful than the layperson's for that purpose. which definitions are useful is also socially determined - we may feel sympathy for the child with 5ARD, told they were a girl their whole life, but who learns that they have testes. should we continue to treat this child as a girl/woman, or should we encourage them to view themselves as a boy/man? that is a social, cultural, legal argument, not a scientific one. the biological truth is the same regardless of the social, cultural, legal arguments, but there may be a compelling case to act differently. that's on us as humans to decide!

so yeah I'm just tired of hearing the same damn arguments over and over again. "what is a woman? is someone with CAIS a woman? is someone with 5ARD? what if we take a young non-intersex male and give them female hormones?" like this will never take us to where we want to go because it's a philosophy of language question disguised as a scientific one. the real question is, what are we talking about and which definitions will help us in that? if you believe that female people are exploited on the basis of their female bodily functions, then obviously you want to bring attention to that by using the word 'female'! if you want to focus on feminine socialization, then it may be useful to bring up cases of people who may not technically be female but were still raised as them, like Erika/Erik Schinegger, a male (possibly with 5ARD) who was raised as a girl and believed he was a girl for most of his youth.

trying to make a single catchy response to a question of what is 'x' is never going to satisfy everyone, because it cannot, because language is imperfect and real life is messy. scientists try to cut nature at the joints, but their cuts may not look like laypeople's! (and don't get me started on scientists disagreeing on what is a joint and what is not, metaphorically.)

and at its worst, when chasing an ironclad definition, you get bizarre answers that seem detached from reality, like saying 'people with CAIS condition are genotypically male and have underdeveloped testes, so we should treat them as males'. they may be reproductive males, but they have a female phenotype, and are raised as girls, and are literally unreceptive to testosterone - to treat them as 'men' on the basis of developmental or reproductive sex certainly seems to be missing something very important from the picture! see below: a person with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS):

does it really make sense to say this person is a man due to her having testes, which technically makes her reproductively male? is that capturing reality? or are you trying to force reality to fit into your definition because you're afraid that if you cannot create a perfect definition of 'woman', that we will never be able to talk about biology and female oppression?

tl;dr: questions like 'what is a woman' are designed to be time-wasters because they are not actually answerable because language sucks. argue for your operative definition, your context, and move on. and don't be afraid to change definitions based on the context... sometimes reproductive sex is relevant, sometimes phenotype is more important, sometimes socialization is more relevant. this is not weakness, it's recognizing that reality is not so rigid and sometimes you must use a different model to get the understanding you want.