著者

川谷 茂樹

出版者

北海学園大学学術研究会

雑誌

学園論集 (ISSN:03857271)

巻号頁・発行日

no.151, pp.1-23, 2012-03

著者

川谷 茂樹

出版者

日本哲学会

雑誌

哲学 (ISSN:03873358)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2004, no.55, pp.155-166,27, 2004-04-01 (Released:2009-07-23)

---

Was fur eine Tätigkeit ist es, die Formen in der Philosophie zu erforschen? Welche Eigentümlichkeit haben die Formen, die durch eine solche Erforschungen entdeckt werden? Was fur eine Tätigkeit ist die transzendentale Philosophie über-haupt?In diesem Aufsatz versuche ich eine adäquate Antwort auf die diese Fragen zu geben, indem ich Kants Argumente in seinen metaphysisch und transzendental genannten zwei "Deduktionen der Kategorien" interpretiere.In der metaphysischen Deduktion kann Kant das Programm seiner Argumentation eigentlich nicht ausfuhren, ohne abhängig von der blossen Tatsache zu sein, dass wir stets durch die zwölf Urteilsformen (Kategorien) urteilen (denken). Fol-glich wird unseren Kategorien ein Merkmal des Faktizität zugefügt. Auch kann die transzendentale Deduktion eine "Alternativenlosigkeit" nicht beweisen. Aber mit diesen Dedktionen können wir argumentieren, dass unsere Kategorien transzendental sind.Letztlich kann man sagen, dass die transzendentale Faktizität unserer Kategorien in Kants zwei "Deduktionen der Kategorien" eine ultimative Grenze erreicht hat. Aber der problematische Begriff dieser Faktizität deutet auf die "unmögliche Moglichkeit" (Th. M. Seebohm) hin, dass unsere Kategorien, die als transzendentale Formen festgestellt werden, entstehen, sich verändern und auch verschwinden können.Die transzendentale Philosophie ist (1) die Tätigkeit, die den ursprünglichen Widerspruch aufweist, die transzendentale Formen, die die Fakta möglich machen, als das Faktum zu setzen, (2) die Bewegung, die schon vom Widerspruch (Aporie) als einem negativen Ursprung ausgeht.

著者

川谷 茂樹

出版者

九州大学哲学会

雑誌

哲学論文集 (ISSN:0285774X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.50, pp.123-139, 2014-12

著者

川谷 茂樹

出版者

Japanese Association for the Contemporary and Applied Philosophy (JACAP)

雑誌

Contemporary and Applied Philosophy (ISSN:18834329)

巻号頁・発行日

no.4, pp.65-78, 2012-11-26

---

The aim of this paper is to reconsider the relation between victory or defeat in a contest or a game of sport and athletic superiority of the participants and to make clear the implication that the former decides the latter. In his noted essay related to the same topic, Nicholas Dixon regards victory or winning as "an operational definition" of athletic superiority of an athlete or a team. Our examination of his argument clarifies the point that it would bring about a kind of skepticism with respect to any decision of athletic superiority by winning of contest. This kind of skepticism results in the failure to decide that any winner is superior and its practical effect to our ordinary concept of sport would obviously be very destructive. If we are to avoid such kind of skepticism and such conclusion, then we must think that the particular contest of sport creatively decides athletic superiority of an athlete or a team. Athletic superiority of an athlete or a team wouldn't exist preceding a contest or independently of it as such, but be generated through it for the first time. When victory or defeat in a contest is determined legitimately or according to the rules of the game, therefore, we must admit that athletic superiority of the participants in it could be decided legitimately as well, that is, "the winner is superior". The ethos of sport, in other words, the intrinsic goal of sport can be thought as "the decision of athletic superiority in terms of victory or defeat" and it could have the four different following decisions, though partially implicitly: 1/the decision that it is precisely through victory or defeat of a contest that athletic superiority of the participants could be decided, 2/the decision how victory and defeat of a game are to be decided (the decision of the rules of the game), 3/the determination of winning and losing in terms of the rules, 4/the decision which player or team is superior.

著者

川谷 茂樹

出版者

Japan Society for the Philosophy of Sport and Physical Education

雑誌

体育・スポーツ哲学研究 (ISSN:09155104)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.26, no.1, pp.1-11, 2004 (Released:2010-04-30)

参考文献数

65

---

This study begins with the following questions. Why should athletes keep rules of sport? What occurs in sport when cheaters break the rules?In relation to these questions, which explore basis or foundation of the rules, there are some precedent theories. Those are 1) rule absolutism or game formalism, 2) contextual contractualism, 3) externalism. Through my research on 1) and 2), a very important issue, namely, the ethos of the game rose. That is, an internal purpose of the game achieved as a result of realization of the game, and at the same time the basis of the rules. Furthermore, with regard to 3), it is not able to point out the basis of the rules because of denying the existence of this ethos: “internal purpose of sport”.All things considered, the ethos of game is to make a decision of victory or defeat. Therefore, a norm “Keep rules” itself is not always an absolute command, a categorical imperative, but a relative one, a hypothetical imperative. Consequently, all cheating, rule breaking, doesn't act on the game destructively. The rules of sport is fundamentally restricted by the ethos of sport under all circumstances. In other words, only this ethos: “the spirit of the sport”, forms the basis or foundation of the rules of sport.

著者

川谷 茂樹

出版者

北海学園大学

雑誌

北海学園大学学園論集 (ISSN:03857271)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.127, pp.A25-A43, 2006-03-25

著者

川谷 茂樹

出版者

日本体育・スポーツ哲学会

雑誌

体育・スポーツ哲学研究 (ISSN:09155104)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.35, no.1, pp.31-43, 2013 (Released:2014-04-16)

参考文献数

29

被引用文献数

4 3 1

---

A main purpose of this paper is to reconsider “the logical incompatibility thesis” which has claimed many adherents among scholars of philosophy of sport since 1970’s. In respect to this thesis that asserts that cheating and game-playing are logically incompatible, it is Kreider that suggests a very important argument. According to Kreider’s argument, rule-following is not the necessary condition of game-playing. It is sufficient for game-playing to commit conforming one’s behavior to the rules of the respective games.This argument seems to be the most serious one against the logical incompatibility thesis until now and suggests that it is impossible in principle for game-players to damage the identity of a particular game. In order to maintain the identity, it is required that not the identity of the player’s play but the institutional identity is retained.But the commitment to rules in this sense does not always involve the commitment to winning. In other words, it is obviously possible for a player to commit rules and at the same time commit defeat (e.g. the player who “throws” a fixed game). Though, of course, even in such a game the institutional identity of the game is maintained, we may well think that something important has been lost. If so, what is it?We should consider that the end of the game or contest in question has not been accomplished. That is, in such a game it has not been decided which player is superior even if a winner is determined, and it is indispensable for all players to commit winning substantially in order to accomplish that end of the game.The logical incompatibility thesis, in fact, has not referred to that end of a game but we tend to misunderstand as if it would do. Although, as stated above, the thesis is literally wrong, its persuasiveness seems to stem from our natural misunderstanding about it.

著者

川谷 茂樹

出版者

日本体育・スポーツ哲学会

雑誌

体育・スポーツ哲学研究 (ISSN:09155104)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.26, no.1, pp.1-11, 2004

---

This study begins with the following questions. Why should athletes keep rules of sport? What occurs in sport when cheaters break the rules?<br>In relation to these questions, which explore basis or foundation of the rules, there are some precedent theories. Those are 1) rule absolutism or game formalism, 2) contextual contractualism, 3) externalism. Through my research on 1) and 2), a very important issue, namely, the ethos of the game rose. That is, an internal purpose of the game achieved as a result of realization of the game, and at the same time the basis of the rules. Furthermore, with regard to 3), it is not able to point out the basis of the rules because of denying the existence of this ethos: &ldquo;internal purpose of sport&rdquo;.<br>All things considered, the ethos of game is to make a decision of victory or defeat. Therefore, a norm &ldquo;Keep rules&rdquo; itself is not always an absolute command, a categorical imperative, but a relative one, a hypothetical imperative. Consequently, all cheating, rule breaking, doesn't act on the game destructively. The rules of sport is fundamentally restricted by the ethos of sport under all circumstances. In other words, only this ethos: &ldquo;the spirit of the sport&rdquo;, forms the basis or foundation of the rules of sport.

著者

川谷 茂樹

出版者

北海学園大学学術研究会

雑誌

学園論集 (ISSN:03857271)

巻号頁・発行日

no.142, pp.1-23, 2009-12

著者

川谷 茂樹

出版者

北海学園大学

雑誌

北海学園大学学園論集 (ISSN:03857271)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.132, pp.A1-A23, 2007-06

著者

川谷 茂樹

出版者

Japanese Association for the Contemporary and Applied Philosophy (JACAP)

雑誌

Contemporary and Applied Philosophy

巻号頁・発行日

vol.4, pp.65-78, 2012-11-26

---

The aim of this paper is to reconsider the relation between victory or defeat in a contest or a game of sport and athletic superiority of the participants and to make clear the implication that the former decides the latter. In his noted essay related to the same topic, Nicholas Dixon regards victory or winning as "an operational definition" of athletic superiority of an athlete or a team. Our examination of his argument clarifies the point that it would bring about a kind of skepticism with respect to any decision of athletic superiority by winning of contest. This kind of skepticism results in the failure to decide that any winner is superior and its practical effect to our ordinary concept of sport would obviously be very destructive. If we are to avoid such kind of skepticism and such conclusion, then we must think that the particular contest of sport creatively decides athletic superiority of an athlete or a team. Athletic superiority of an athlete or a team wouldn't exist preceding a contest or independently of it as such, but be generated through it for the first time. When victory or defeat in a contest is determined legitimately or according to the rules of the game, therefore, we must admit that athletic superiority of the participants in it could be decided legitimately as well, that is, "the winner is superior". The ethos of sport, in other words, the intrinsic goal of sport can be thought as "the decision of athletic superiority in terms of victory or defeat" and it could have the four different following decisions, though partially implicitly: 1/the decision that it is precisely through victory or defeat of a contest that athletic superiority of the participants could be decided, 2/the decision how victory and defeat of a game are to be decided (the decision of the rules of the game), 3/the determination of winning and losing in terms of the rules, 4/the decision which player or team is superior.

著者

シェリル・ベルクマン・ドゥルー著 川谷茂樹訳

出版者

ナカニシヤ出版

巻号頁・発行日

2012