Martin Heidegger is an interesting figure in philosophy. While most notable philosophers tend to polarize people, in Heidegger’s case this is especially true. Born in Germany in 1889, Heidegger joined the Nazi Party during the rise of the Third Reich. For this, in American and British circles, he is lowly regarded, but in continental European philosophical circles he is still regarded as a highly influential existentialist.
I guess this isn’t entirely relevant except that it gets me to thinking about the relative reputations of different players given who you ask. (Who was better, Maradona or Pele?)
Anyways, what I was thinking about is actually existentialism. What exactly does it mean for an object to exist? I mean, what makes a hammer a hammer? Heidegger would say that a hammer is a hammer not because it has certain hammer-like properties, but because it is used for hammering.
Bearing this question on my home town club, the Minnesota Thunder, I have been wondering what the retirement of Buzz Lagos means for the team. I suppose given Heidegger’s definition, the Thunder are the Thunder because they play soccer in Minnesota, but I have to question if it really is the Thunder.
The question is often framed in terms of a ship: If a ship goes off on a long journey, and by the end of the journey, every single piece of the ship has been replaced, is it still the same ship?
In terms of the Thunder, is it still the same team? Since its inception in 1990, Buzz has been the only constant for the Thunder. They no longer have the same logo, nor the same GM nor even the same team colors or home stadium since the move to James Griffin Stadium in 2004, so can it still be called the same team? Obviously, the name, Thunder is the same, but can the team still claim the right to use that name?
Can I still call myself a fan of the Thunder given this shift? I guess, since I became a fan in earnest probably (again—it’s a long story) in 2003, I can still say that I am a fan of those players (and assistance coaches) who were a part of the team that year—Amos Magee, Zafer Kilickan, Joe Warren and Johnny Menyongar.
Perhaps it’s more significant in the case of my other club, Newcastle United. I became a fan of Newcastle in 1997. That’s 105 years into the history of the club, so am I a fan of NUFC really? Or am I a fan of some club that happened to be called by the name of Newcastle United in 1997? If we apply the same rule of the “same team” as 1997, then the only player who is still at the club since then in Alan Shearer*, and he has indicated that this is his last season. So will I still be a fan of the same team or a fan of something that no longer exists but existed several years ago and is dying a slow death?
This is why philosophers don’t get much sleep.
Martin Heidegger's football career was shortlived due to his assertions that the ball was not a ball.
P.S. You can download my Buzz tribute videos here.
*Actually, Lee Clark and Robbie Elliot have returned to the squad after spells away from it in the intervening years
4 Comments:
Whereas Foucault would say a hammer is a hammer because it is the opposite of all non-hammer things. Kinda like the Metros and the playoffs in that respect.
I have significant issues with both definitions; for example with Heidegger if I use a stone to drive in a nail that doesn't necessarily make the stone a hammer, even if it is being used as one. While Foucault's definition is perhaps more accurate, it is still difficult to say how exactly a hammer is the opposite of all non-hammer things, significantly because the definition of "opposite" is, in my mind, rather narrow and is a difficult concept to apply to most objects and/or their descriptions. White is the opposite of black, it is generally accepted, but is red the opposite of blue? You could make an argument that the opposite of blue is 'anti-blue' id est the frequency of light with the exact mathematical opposite wavelength of blue, but is that, in fact, red? (and can I get any more commas into a sentence if I try really hard?)
For me, the hammer is a hammer because it fits a set of descriptors for which we have a label "hammer" and therefore supporting the same club is still the same because we can modify the descriptors that are included in that label at any time. We could describe the Minnesota Thunder as "a USL-1 club that is coached by Buzz Lagos and managed by Djorn Buchholz and employs such players as Joe Warren, Johnny Menyongar, Jeff Matteo and Freddy Juarez" but that definition is not accurate of the 2004 Thunder (the USL-1 is what was then the A-league) and will not be accurate of the 2006 Thunder as Buzz Lagos will no longer be the coach. With these fluid descriptors, however, it is difficult to see where to draw the line as to which parts can be changed so easily. Take, for example the Minnesota Twins who were once the Washington Senators (helluva lot better name than "nationals" if you ask me, but I digress.) That's a sufficient change to mean that while I can say I am a fan of the Twins, it is not the same as saying that I am a fan of the Senators.
It is in finding the rules for the changing of those descriptors that I find the difficulty.
But sadly the Metrostars do indeed seem to be the opposite of all things that have to do with success in MLS. :(
(the Metrostars have been marginally my club since 1996 when they employed four of my favorite players: Meola, Ramos, Sorber and of course, Manuel Lagos.)
I think you may be forgeting one component of a team that, I feel you would agree is of high degree of importance, that being the fans. I would contend that the fans are an object that contributes to the existence of a team.
All-be-it fans do come and go and one can atest from even your example - Thunder fans since '03 and NUFC fans since '97, there are fans that exist after the birth of a team. I would relate this to a human, one critical component for existance of a human is all the 'stuff' we are made up of - carbon, iron, calcium etc... Now over a life time a body will sluff all of the elements within and have a complete new set of elements. So just because the intial set of elements may no longer be composed within that body, does that body no loner exist? No, it is still a human now with a new set of elements, as it was with the intial set of elements.
So I would contend individual fans are like those elements, and the team is the body. Just because elements change does not mean existance ends.
True, I did not mention the fans, perhaps because I did not turn the lens inward seeing as I was asking what made a fan of the same team, but you are saying that perhaps being a fan of the team is what makes the team there to be a fan of. An interested perspective.
But your other point goes a bit far, I think. At what point *does* existence end? If it is true that every seven years every cell in my body has died and been replaced, have I not truly inherited this life from a dead man? Perhaps not, but WHY not? You can't very well say that the changing of elements *never* constitutes the changing of the whole. So when does it? How much of it has to change? Does any one thing have to remain the same?
The extremes are clear, usually, but when you get into the actual border of the reality it gets really fuzzy.
Post a Comment
<< Home