But I argue that it is the purist-the one who views sport simply for its moments of beauty and drama-whose sense of meaning in life benefits most from their interest in sport. I compare sport and art with regard to the respective contributions they make towards these meaning-giving features of life, and conclude that on all three factors, art fares better than sport. Rejecting Suits’ view, and reflecting on the life of the legendary figure of Sisyphus, I suggest that we derive a sense of meaning in life from three main factors-three convictions-namely, that our lives serve some useful purpose, making at least some contribution to the well-being of the world that our lives have direction, moving towards at least one goal that seems worthwhile to us finally, that we are connected with the world in at least some significant ways, in particular, with other people whose lives intersect with ours. Bernard Suits (in his book 'The Grasshopper' from 1967) defined a game as such (clarifications in brackets are mine): To play a game is to engage in activity directed toward bringing about a specific state of affairs (prelusory goal), using only limited means permitted by specific rules (lusory means), where the means permitted by the rules are more limited in scope than they would be in. Suits believes that the only activity that gives life meaning is game playing. Prompted by Bernard Suits’ classic study The Grasshopper, I turn in this chapter to the fundamental question of what gives meaning to a life-what makes it worth living.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |