I came to the conclusion that this book was undoubtedly a masterpiece and one of the best works in philosophy I had ever read, and it should become one of the classics of philosophy (not only philosophy of sport/game) before long. Meanwhile, I utterly forgot about the immediate task, i.e., Drewe’s translation. However, I got gradually interested and absorbed in it, finished reading it in one week, and repeated reading it as a whole three times over about one month. I was depressed and reluctant when I started reading it. Eventually, I was obliged to read Suits’s The Grasshopper directly. I read Drewe’s description repeatedly many times, but I did not know how I should translate the very important terms ‘prelusory’ and ‘lusory’ that Suits had created by himself. I had a major trouble in translating this part of the book. Footnote 2 Drewe explained Suits’s definition of game-playing in her book. Drewe’s Why sport? – An introduction to the philosophy of the sport. Several months before, I had been translating S. It was in the summer of 2011 that I read The Grasshopper for the first time. In fact, I did not read it for about ten years since. Therefore, I did not think it would be necessary to read Suits’s The Grasshopper, either. Footnote 1 But they did not leave a strong impression on me, and I did not think it was necessary to refer to Suits’s definition of game-playing in my own book, because it was not useful to identify the essence of sport, in comparison to, e.g., the ideas of Klaus Meier and his disciple, Deborah Vossen, who both defined ‘sport’ using Suits’s definition.
I had encountered Bernard Suits’s articles before I wrote a book about philosophical and ethical investigations into sport.
0 kommentar(er)
