Makalah Review Jurnal Internasional

1. Makalah Review
Sport, Philosophy, and the Quest for Knowledge
Dosen pengampu : Dr. Made Pramono, S.S. M.Hum.
Disusun Oleh :
Arum Suryaningsih Kusmawati
( 20060484062 )
Kelas : IKOR 2020 B
Fakultas Ilmu Olahraga
Jurusan Pendidikan Kesehatan dan Rekreasi
Universitas Negeri Surabaya
Tahun 2021

2. i
Kata Pengantar
Puji syukur kehadirat Allah SWT yang telah memberikan rahmat dan hidayah-Nya
sehingga saya dapat menyelesaikan makalah yang berjudul Sport, Philosophy, and
the Quest for Knowledge ini tepat pada waktunya.Adapun tujuan dari penulisan dari
makalah ini adalah untuk memenuhi tugas dosen pada mata kuliah Filsafat dan
Sejarah Olahraga. Selain itu, makalah ini juga bertujuan untuk menambah wawasan
tentang Sport, Philosophy, and the Quest for Knowledge bagi para pembaca dan juga
bagi penulis.
Saya mengucapkan terima kasih kepada Bapak Dr. Made Pramono, S.S. M.Hum. selaku
dosen mata kuliah Filsfat dan Sejarah Olahraga yang telah memberikan tugas ini sehingga
dapat menambah pengetahuan dan wawasan sesuai dengan bidang studi yang saya tekuni.
Saya juga mengucapkan terima kasih kepada semua pihak yang telah membagi sebagian
pengetahuannya sehingga saya dapat menyelesaikan makalah ini.
Saya menyadari, makalah yang saya tulis ini masih jauh dari kata sempurna. Oleh karena itu,
kritik dan saran yang membangun akan saya nantikan demi kesempurnaan makalah ini.
Kediri, 16 Maret 2021
Arum Suryaningsih K
NIM 20060484062

3. ii
Daftar Isi
Kata Pengantar ................................................................................................................... i
Daftar Isi ............................................................................................................................ ii
BAB 1 ................................................................................................................................ 1
Jurnal .................................................................................................................................. 1
BAB 2 ................................................................................................................................ 11
Review Jurnal ..................................................................................................................... 11
BAB 3 ................................................................................................................................ 13
Kesimpulan dan Saran`........................................................................................................ 13
Link Slide Share.................................................................................................................. 13
Daftar Pustaka .................................................................................................................... 14

4. 1
BAB 1
Jurnal
Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 2009, 36, 40-49
© 2009 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Sport, Philosophy, and the Quest for Knowledge
Heather L. Reid
In his seminal work, Homo Ludens, Johan Huizinga argues persuasively that sport is a form
of play. This view is widely accepted among sport philosophers today, as evidenced by the
use of terms such as ‘nonserious,’ ‘autotelic,’ and ‘gratuitous’ to describe the subject of our
study. At the same time this play-paradigm seems at odds with the modern world, which
takes sports very seriously, puts them in the service of deliberate ends, and views them (or
competition at least) as essential for human thriving. Indeed our modern use of sport seems
to better resemble ancient Greece, where athletic contest (agōn) served specific political and
educational goals. Huizinga claims that the ancient Hellenes simply became unaware of
their contests’ autotelic character (5: 30–31); my own concern is that we moderns are
becoming unaware of–or indifferent to–sport’s contemporary ends.1 Insofar as we still value
the social and educational potential of sport in the modern world, we can benefit from a
study of its corresponding function in the ancient world. What my own study of these
phenomena reveals is that sport’s social and educational benefits derive not from its playful
character, but from its philosophical origins as a knowledge-seeking activity.
Like philosophy, democracy, and other forms of competitive truth seeking that emerged
in ancient Greece, athletic contests display the characteristics of authentic questioning,
impartial testing, and public demonstration of results; fea tures that endure in such modern
practices as courtroom trials and scientific exper iments. Hellenic sport was born with these
knowledge-seeking characteristics, not least because it was conceived in response to an
emerging philosophical recogni tion of the fallibility of humanity and its traditional
hierarchies. By setting up rational, impartial, and publicly observed selection methods, both
athletics and philosophical inquiry managed to subvert worldly power and authority,
thereby fostering agreement among diverse communities without suppressing individual ity.
Later sport and philosophy were adapted to the educational function of culti vating individual
virtue (aretē) or, in modern parlance, moral character. As we continue to pursue social and
educational goals through sport, it is important to understand how these functions were
related in ancient times to sport’s philo sophical characteristics. Indeed we may better put
sport in the service of humanity today, by viewing it not merely as playful, but also as
philosophical; as an expres sion of what Aristotle called the natural and universal human
desire to learn and know (1: 980a).
The author <reid@morningside.edu> is with Morningside College, Sioux City, IA 51101.
40
Sport, Philosophy, and the Quest for Knowledge 41

5. 2
I. Contests of Truth: The Social Function
of Truth-Seeking Athletics
“Olympía, déspoin’ alatheías” (Olympia, mistress of truth). So begins Pindar’s eighth
Olympian Ode (10: pp. 136–7). The ancient association between Olympia and knowledge
seeking derives partly from the existence of an oracle at the site, but also from the less
tangible sentiment that athletic results from Olympia were reliable indicators of truth about
the gods’ wishes and the relative merits of ath
letes and their tribes. There was nothing new or revolutionary in the association of athletics
and truth. Our earliest accounts of sport-like activities (up to a millen nium before the
Olympic Games) among Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Minoans, and Hittites, show
royals using athletic display as public evidence for social standing and worthiness to lead.
Rarely, if ever, though was the worthiness of the ruler actually challenged.2 What was
distinctive about Hellenic athletics and Olympic style contests was that they were
knowledge-seeking, rather than presumption-affirming. Their outcomes were generally
uncertain, they were gov
erned by impartial rules, and they were subject to public scrutiny. As a result, Hellenic
athletics were from the start subversive. But what they subverted specifically were dogmatic
and relativistic standards for truth (i.e., those controlled by worldly rank and power) and
what they promoted were more impar tial and universal standards, capable of settling
disagreements among diverse and even warring tribes. Philosophical inquiry emerges in 6th
century Ionia as an approach to studying nature that has similar characteristics and similar
results. Having encountered competing religious and mythological claims from neighbor ing
cultures, the Presocratic philosophers sought a more impartial and demon strable method of
understanding nature—one that bypassed worldly authority and social hierarchies. The
dreams of athletic glory still harbored by underprivileged youth are evidence that social
subversion remains part of our modern conception of sport. But sport’s power to challenge
social hierarchies faces erosion–as it always has–by those in power who would be subverted.
To preserve sport’s socially subversive function, we must appreciate its connection to
authentic ques tioning, impartial testing, and public display of evidence.
Uncertainty and Authentic Questioning
The Greek term ‘philosophia’, which literally means “love of wisdom” (9: p. 1980),3 seems
to have been coined in the 6th century BCE by Pythagoras, who used it to describe those rare
thinkers, like himself, who acknowledged not their wisdom but rather their ignorance (2:
1.12). It was of course Socrates who made this conception of philosophy famous by
declaring more than a century later that his renowned “wisdom” derived precisely from the
awareness that he lacked knowledge. We cannot truly love and desire what we think we
already possess; so we are philosophers only as long as we pursue authentic questions with
uncertain answers.4 Sport, likewise, is philosophical only as long as it is actually open to
finding answers which may conflict with what people already believe. The contest must not
be designed simply to affirm the status-quo, or any other preferred out come: it has to reflect
the spirit of really wanting to know. When challengers boxed the pharaoh in Ancient Egypt,
the question of who would win was neither
42 Reid
authentic nor was its answer uncertain. Although such contests were intended to reassure
subjects of the pharaoh’s divine invincibility, they begged their own ques tion. Philosophical
sport begins with authentic questions derived from real uncer tainty about outcomes.5

6. 3
But where did such “authentic questions” come from? What prompted Preso cratic
philosophy and contemporary athletics as described in Homer and practiced at Olympia to
embrace the uncertain, impartial, and public pursuit of truth? The answer quite simply is:
closely competing claims among divergent stakeholders. Mycenean funeral games, perhaps
the earliest form of philosophical sport, settled competing claims to the deceased’s property.
Patroclos’ funeral games as depicted in Homer’s Iliad take this concept further by
negotiating Achilles’ and Agamem non’s competing claims to honor and authority. Later, at
Olympia, the religious puzzle of who should have the honor of lighting the sacrificial flame
came to be solved by a simple footrace from the edge of the sanctuary to the altar.5 And in
6th century Ionia, increased contact among diverse cultural traditions in the absence of
overarching authority prompted the development a more universal method of truth-seeking.6
It shouldn’t be a surprise that the method they invented (now known as philosophy and early
natural science) resembled athletic games, since all were responses to competing truth-
claims.
What was distinctive—and subversive—about the athletic and philosophical methods of
truth-seeking is that the answering of the questions they ask is dele gated to the contest rather
than tradition or authority. In this way they exhibit the characteristically philosophical
quality of uncertainty, or acknowledged igno rance. Although modern sport no longer
addresses questions about religious favor or worthiness to lead, it still negotiates competing
claims to excellence and often decides the distribution of cash, prizes, and educational
opportunities. It is impor tant, therefore, to remain sensitive to the authenticity of our
questions by keeping social presumptions from compromising the integrity of the contest.
The athletic success of marginalized classes and races certainly has helped to subvert
modern social hierarchies, and it is widely recognized that preemptive exclusion of par
ticipants based on class or race runs counter to the logic of philosophical contest. But
exclusion based on sex and inequities derived from financial disparity persist in sport,
drawing little criticism, perhaps because they reflect our presumptions about athletic
excellence. Sport’s ability to subvert social hierarchies requires first that we honor its
philosophical heritage of authentic questioning.
Open and Impartial Testing
The very act of authentic questioning displays intellectual humility with respect to the truth,
but for sport to be philosophical, humility must also be reflected in the construction of the
test. If one’s method for resolving disputes is simply to let the local sovereign decide, or
even to set armies to battle, one hasn’t fully acknowl
edged the limitations of the human mind. Insofar as “truth” is understood as some thing
universal and eternal, knowledge of such truths must be reliable and demon strable; not just a
matter of belief, persuasion, or worldly power (military, political, or otherwise). As
Heraclitus taught us about the river, the world of senses is con stantly in flux;7 if we are to
know something universal we must therefore approach it through reason. This is why the
Pythagoreans sought to understand the kosmos
Sport, Philosophy, and the Quest for Knowledge 43
using impartial criteria such as number and proportion.8 It is also why Olympia’s judges and
organizers (the so-called hellanodikae), enforced contest rules very strictly while rejecting
all subjectively-judged events. Since their goal was to ded icate truly pleasing victors to a
supremely wise god, their own biases and prefer ences couldn’t be allowed to interfere.
Impartial mechanisms for truth-seeking act to neutralize the effects of human fallibility and
worldly bias, providing equal

7. 4
opportunity for diverse possibilities: athletes, ideas, even hypotheses. The basic features of
Olympic-style sports, such as common starting lines and level playing fields, exhibit the
philosophical drive for rational impartiality. Already in Homer’s Bronze Age, the fair
construction of contests is emphasized. In the chariot race, for example, there is no
permanent track, so a common starting line is literally drawn in the sand and the reliable
elder Phoenix is sent off to ref eree the turnaround point. The starting positions are
determined by drawing lots, and when young Antilochos recklessly cuts off Menelaos at a
narrow stream crossing, a dispute erupts over the validity of the results. A serious discussion
and redistribution of prizes ensues until the community is satisfied with the end result. The
Homeric creed “to always be the best and outdo others” (4: 11.784) generated authentic
questions about who was the best. In the context of hand-to-hand combat, the truth of a
warrior’s aretē is important, and contests provided a rela tively impartial mechanism not just
to affirm, but to impartially test it.9 Insofar as the community’s welfare depends on contest
results (whether they are imagined to represent god favor or military prowess), it is essential
to sport’s social and philo sophical functions that contests be constructed and conducted
impartially. Modern sports rules generally respect the principles of impartial testing;
competitors even switch sides in field and court games just in case some advan tage has
slipped through the cracks. On the other hand, the competitive and often greed-fueled drive
to gain any advantage possible sets up an antagonistic relation ship between competitors and
officials that often leaves the purpose of the contest behind. Just as with scientific
experiments, the value of the results depends on the integrity of the test. Not only must
competitors obey the contest rules, officials must meticulously enforce them. The
proliferation of doping in the 1980s and 1990s was due not only to unscrupulous
competitors, but also to financially-inter ested foxes guarding the drug-testing hen house; it
took the establishment of an impartial and independent drug-testing body (WADA) to gain
any real traction on the issue. To be sure a variety of stakeholders can serve their interests
though sport. But the goods that all of us seek—results, revenue, honor, entertainment—
depend for their value ultimately upon the integrity and impartiality of the contest.
Public Display of Evidence
The third characteristic of philosophical sport is public observation of the contest and the
effect this has on their acceptance of the results.10 Rooting for one’s favorite athlete or team
is as much a part of sports as arguing for one’s thesis is part of philosophical inquiry. In
neither practice, however, should the winner be determined by who supports it or even how
many support it. Rather, each candi
date should be subjected to the rational and impartial test before everyone’s eyes. The
public’s interest in accurate results requires that popular opinion defer to
44 Reid
demonstrable evidence. Public demonstration leads to acceptance of contest results by
fostering consensus without appeal to tradition, authority, faith, or violence. Indeed the
unifying and pacifying effects of athletic games were thought to contribute to the Achaean
victory over the Trojans and the Hellenic victory over the Persians. Olympia’s sacred truce
made the Games a rare opportunity for diverse (and often warring) tribes to come together
for a common cause of worship. Intellectuals came to exchange ideas just as boxers came to
exchange blows. Indeed intertribal contact at Olympia fostered the economic development of
trade, as well as the political negotiation of peace.
But getting rivals to agree on anything—even to imagine that they could agree—takes
more than a safe time and place. It takes common interest in a common cause. Since the

8. 5
worshippers at Olympia had a common interest in selecting victors who would please the
relevant god—they took a common inter
est in the validity of contest results. In this regard, nothing was left to chance. A month-long
pre-Olympic training camp was held at Elis under the supervision of holy-men to assure the
worthiness of every candidate. At the Games competitors were literally stripped of their
cultural differences and socially-constructed inequalities and a stadium was built so that
everyone could observe the process. No doubt political rivalries were played out in the
Games, but the public scrutiny facilitated acceptance of the results even when they subverted
personal preference or conventional wisdom. Most important, the cooperation expressed in
the Games paved the way for economic and military cooperation without subjection to a
single authority. Through the use of such mechanisms as blind review and public
presentation, philosophers and scientists engage in a similar kind of competitive cooperation
for the common cause of truth, one ideally independent of power, politics, cultural ideology.
Modern sport is still subject to widespread public scrutiny, albeit increasingly through
the medium of television. What has changed is the influence on the con test of unseen factors
such as doping. In some sports this has eroded public confi dence in the validity of results
and thereby reduced their unifying power. An excellent example is the Tour de France,
which found a winner in Lance Arm strong who was able to unify diverse people in the
common cause of fighting cancer. After Armstrong’s retirement, cycling’s long-term doping
problems were unmasked and the sport has been scrambling to restore its public credibility
and hence its value to sponsors. Even Armstrong harnessed his comeback bid to a respected
dope-testing expert who promised to monitor the champion and place his test results on the
Internet for all to see. Once a sport loses public credibility, its potential for social subversion
dries up. Both the impartiality of the test and the authenticity of the question are drawn into
doubt, and we regress to the pharaoh’s boxing match with its dispassionate and incredulous
spectators. In the modern world, sport remains a worthy way to challenge social hierarchies
and assump tions, but only insofar we values and preserve its ancient philosophical structure.
Sport must be open to authentic questions, secure the impartiality of its tests, and strive for
public transparency in its results.
Sport, Philosophy, and the Quest for Knowledge 45
II. Contests of Virtue: The Educational Function of Ancient Athletics
In Ancient Greece, the social function of athletics was already well-developed by the time
that gymnastics became an integral part of education for excellence (aretē). Confusion
abounded even in Plato’s time about how exercises apparently focused on the body could
build the moral strength we like to call ‘character.’ No doubt it was the youth’s obsession
with sports that led Socrates into Athens’ gym
nasia where he learned and adapted tricks from the athletes’ trade to turn young men’s souls
away from victory and toward wisdom. But this philosophical jour ney, at least for Plato,
does not leave athletics behind. Rather the force of character revealed and developed through
sport seems essential for those who would become philosopher-kings in the Republic. This is
because the body (sōma) was to the ancient mind inanimate. Intentional physical movement
was a product and expres sion of the mind/soul (psychē). The fit athletic body, as a product of
voluntary and intentional movement, is merely testament to the aretē of the soul. Athletics
func tioned within ancient education not merely as physical training, but as a way to
cultivate strong, truth-seeking souls that would ultimately serve their communi ties. Their
goals were not so different from ours; let us observe their methods.
Socratic Contest

9. 6
It is well known that Socrates turned the natural investigations of the Presocratics toward the
explicitly educational ends of moral philosophy. Less well known are the connections
between the Socratic method known as elenchos and athletic con test. Plato’s persistent use
of athletic settings and metaphors is more than literary window-dressing. The Socratic
dialogues exhibit the same characteristics of truth seeking as athletics described above. Like
competitive sport, they expose imper fections, test for improvement, and provide public
evidence of their findings. Socrates adapts this athletic framework, along with its attendant
lust for victory (philonikia), away from the relativistic goal of defeat and toward the
idealistic goals of truth and virtue, that is, philosōphia.
Socrates was put on trial for corrupting the youth by publicly exposing local wise men’s
ignorance. The social subversion already associated with Greek athletics was certainly part
of his aim. Indeed he compares his “labors” in Apology to those of the athletic Heracles, who
liberated the Greeks from onerous monsters and tyrants (22a). But Socrates’ shame game
(indeed the verb for Socratic examination, elenchō, means to disgrace or put to shame) has
the explicitly educational function of motivating Athenian youths to inquire for themselves
rather than pay sophists for gimmicky answers.11 Just as athletes are motivated by losing, or
at least the risk of losing, to spend long hours in training and preparation, Socrates’
disclosure of ignorance is designed to motivate serious philosophical inquiry. In this sense it
is a benefit and he describes it as a service both to the city and to the god, adding that the
city should reward him like an Olympic victor,
46 Reid
since champions only make the city think itself happier, whereas Socrates offers them a
chance at true happiness (36e).
This idea that agonistic struggle (with its shaming and defeat) can be per ceived as an
educational service remains central to justifications for scholastic athletics today. Socrates’
use of dialectic clearly aims at the improvement of the individual. “You love to win,
Socrates,” says Callicles in Gorgias (515b); it is a charge the philosopher does not deny. But
Socrates is less interested in winning the argument, than he is in winning over his
interlocutors to the practice of phi losophy. He exemplifies–if he doesn’t invent–the
friendship aspect of competi tion, explaining his challenge to Callicles as a test of the soul
analogous to a stone that tests gold (486c).12 Socrates’ elenchos is also described as an
intellectual undressing comparable to athletic nudity and aimed explicitly at psychic improve
ment.13 He insists that everyone participate, chastising the aged Theodorus for refusing to
enter the philosophical conversation by comparing him to a voyeur at a Spartan wrestling
school. Replies Theodorus, “The Spartans tell one either to strip or to go away; but you seem
rather to be playing the part of Antaeus. You don’t let any comer go till you have stripped
him and made him wrestle with you in the argument.” Socrates’ response is telling:
That, Theodorus, is an excellent simile to describe what is the matter with me. But I am
more of a fiend for exercise than Sciron and Antaeus. I have met with many and many a
Heracles and Theseus in my time, mighty men of words; and they have well battered me.
But for all that I don’t retire from the field, so terrible a lust has come upon me for these
exercises. You must not begrudge me this, either, try a fall with me and we shall both be
the better. (Theaetetus 169bc)
Importantly, and unlike today’s scholastic sports, submission of oneself to the contest is
required—but all contestants are expected to benefit, not just the winners.
As philosophers we value the challenge and even refutation of our arguments. Why is
public discourse about the value of failure in sports so rare? Misapprehen sion of athletic

10. 7
goals—even in educational settings—explains this phenomenon. Colleges and universities
use sports as a means to financial ends and students do the same. Since financial (but not
educational) results depend on winning, its pri macy in that environment goes largely
unquestioned. Public risking and losing, on the other hand, the value of which is educational
(but not financial) is generally avoided—and at the expense of moral education.
Struggling With Souls in Plato
In Plato’s Republic, athletics are woven into education explicitly for the purpose of
developing souls capable of philosophy and, eventually, community leadership. The
authentic question here addressed by athletics comes from uncertainty about who should
lead. And the role athletics plays in answering that question is not simply the testing of
hypotheses, but the testing and selection of souls that can withstand the rigors of
mathematical and philosophical education aimed at an understanding of the Good. Plato also
expects athletic soul training to turn
Sport, Philosophy, and the Quest for Knowledge 47
individuals’ interests away from personal pleasure and material wealth in favor of public
service. Indeed the guardians and philosopher kings will not have personal property or
individual families.
The aretē sought in Plato’s Republic is described as the healthful and harmo nious
organization of the intellectual, spirited, and appetitive parts of the soul. Plato seems to think
athletics can achieve this because they require the intellect to apprehend the rules of the
game and then to recruit the spirit and appetite to its cause. In another dialogue, Phaedrus,
this virtuous harmony is illustrated by the athletic metaphor of a two-horse chariot in which
the intellect drives a noble and spirited horse alongside the strong but less obedient
appetitive horse. Since ath letic success depends on the taming of selfish appetites and the
directing of honor or spirit toward the noble ends apprehended by the intellect, sport could
train the soul for higher education and ultimately public service. Significantly, Plato doesn’t
neglect any element of the soul in his account. Appetite and spirit are needed to climb the
arduous path from the cave of appearance to the divine light of truth— and they prepare for
this expedition through athletic competition.
Athletics in the Republic are neither playful nor autotelic. Plato uses them explicitly to
train souls and select a social elite who will go on to distinguish themselves in academics
and, ultimately, public service. Candidates are to be kept “under observation from
childhood,” and subjected to “labors (ponous), pains, and contests (agōnas)” so that they
may be tested “more thoroughly than gold is tested by fire” (413cd). Our modern ideas that
sports are a means of recreation, entertainment, or personal and institutional income are all
negated in Republic by the abandonment of appetitive desires (which include wealth as well
as physical pleasure). Modern scholastic sports, by contrast, are generally pursued for profit
and at the expense of academics and public service. Whereas the primacy of wealth is
unquestioned today, in Plato’s Republic the most prestigious careers are based on public
service and require the abandonment of personal ambitions and often one’s family and
property. As seriously as sports are taken in educational institutions today, I suspect Plato
would lament that we don’t take them seriously enough to put them explicitly and
intentionally in the service of our most impor tant social functions.

11. 8
Conclusion
Some say that we should look to Rome rather than Greece to see our own athletic values
reflected in antiquity. There, they say, sports were primarily entertainment enjoyed by
masses of inactive spectators and exploited by politicians who sought public favor. But even
the bloody spectacle of gladiator fights preserved the truth
seeking and educational functions that connect sport and philosophy. While the Emperor
saluted the Roman spectators, who were seated in tiers according to social class, the contest
itself challenged that hierarchy. It gave the lowly “social ly-dead” gladiator the opportunity
to prove his social worth by prevailing in a publicly observed and strictly regulated test of
relevant virtues. The condemned gladiator who received the wooden sword of freedom from
the emperor as the community shouted its approval stands as an enduring symbol of sport’s
ancestral ties to philosophy.
48 Reid
Today, as philosophers of sport seek to critically examine and improve ath letic
competition in our world, they should remember to recognize the ancient resemblance
between sport and philosophical inquiry. This connection recalls the important social and
educational functions of ancient Greek athletics and it chal lenges us to preserve the integrity
of sport as a knowledge-seeking practice capa ble of serving noble human ends. We should
appreciate sport’s capacity for social subversion as well as its potential for individual
education. This requires the humility to ask authentic questions about hierarchy and
authority and the courage to let the contest answer them impartially without manipulation
from worldly interests and hierarchies. Finally, we need to preserve the public’s confidence
in the results—enforcing the rules of the contest no less rigorously than a scientific study.
After all sport, philosophy, and science all share knowledge-seeking char acteristics. Sport
philosophers may preserve the social and educational value of athletics if we view sport not
just as a form of play, but also as a form of knowl edge seeking—one still capable of serving
social and educational goals, as it did in Ancient Greece.
Notes
1. Huizinga’s conception of play turns out to be so broad that I think he can plausibly
include Greek agōn within it. What we need to avoid is a narrower conception of play that
ultimately denies or ignores sport’s potential (in the ancient or modern world) as an
important educational and political tool.
2. Donald Kyle (8: p. 37) describes these earliest contests as “fields of play on which status
was defined and social orders were (re)constituted.” He notes, however, that competition
was rarely open and equal. Superhuman emperors and Egyptian pharaohs could not risk
losing.
3. Sport,’ by contrast, is a modern term that derives from the Anglo-French desporter, which
means to divert or amuse. This etymological heritage helps to explain the focus on play in
the philosophy of sport literature. In Homo Ludens, Johan Huizinga claims that play is older
than culture itself (5: p. 1). By focusing on Greek athletics, I am not denying this claim, but
rather looking to the intentionally cultural practice of sport.
4. This is how Aristotle (1: 982b12–21) distinguishes the first Ionian philosophers from the
myth-tellers that came before them. He says they believed they were ignorant and pursued
phi losophy to escape that ignorance; preferring reason and evidence to the traditional faith
and storytelling.

12. 9
5. This is based on a passage in Philostratos (Gym. 5). For the latest on the scholarly debate
over the passage, ser Valavanis (12: pp. 141–5).
6. In fact the Ionian intellectual revolution was based upon political, social, and religious
changes described by Kirk, Raven and Schofield as a transition “away from the closed tradi
tional society (which in its archetypal form is an oral society in which the telling of tales is
an important instrument of stability and analysis) and toward an open society in which the
values of the past become relatively unimportant and radically fresh opinions can be formed
both of the community itself and of its expanding environment” (7: p. 74). More specifically
in Ionia this included material wealth and the opportunity for contact with other cultures
such as Sardis and Egypt (7: p. 75).
7. Heraclitus was famous for saying that you can’t step in the same river twice. On the reli
ability of reason, see (3: p. 27).
Sport, Philosophy, and the Quest for Knowledge 49
8. The Milesians sought a single substance underlying all things. The Greek term kosmos,
means not only universe but order. The general idea of Pythagoreanism was to impose order
on disorder. Numerical philosophy emphasized proportion and a common standard by which
all things could be measured/ordered. See (3: p. 106).
9. Says Kyle (8: pp. 56, 68) of the Homeric era: “Contests were a mechanism of status
definition. . . . [In the Odyssey] sport clarifies status relationships (and here ethnicities as
well) and furthers the hero’s reintegration and return to society.
10. This is implied in the common roots of the words agōn (contest) and ‘agora’ (market
place).
11. In addition, in writing aporetic dialogues, mightn’t Plato be attempting to produce the
same effect among his readers? It makes particular sense that Plato should have portrayed
Socrates defeating rival educators in Athens. After all, Plato had his Academy to promote.
12. Since friends are by definition those who seek the benefit or improvement of their
friends, the competitor’s challenge is a form of friendship. See Hyland (1978).
13. This is suggested when Theaetetus is asked to “show himself” for Socrates’ examination
(Theaetetus 145b). Socrates then scolds Theodorus for refusing to enter the conversation,
asking him whether it would be right, were he visiting a Spartan wrestling-school, “to sit and
watch other men exercising naked—some of them not much to look at—and refuse to strip
yourself alongside of them, and take your turn of letting people see what you look like?”
(162b).
References
1. Aristotle. “Metaphysics.” In The Complete Works of Aristotle, 2 vols, J. Barnes (Ed.). New
Jersey: Princeton U.P., 1984.
2. Laertius, Diogenes. Lives of Eminent Philosophers, vol. I, translated by R.D. Hicks.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972.
3. Hermann, Arnold. To Think Like God. Las Vegas, NV: Paramenides Publishing, 2004.
4. Homer. The Iliad. Trans. Robert Fagles. New York: Penguin, 1990. 5. Huizinga, J. Homo
Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Boston: Beacon Press, 1955.
6. Hyland, Drew A. “Competition and Friendship.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport V
(1978): 27-37.
7. Kirk, Raven, Schofield, G.S., Raven, J.E., and Schofield, M. The Presocratic Philoso
phers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

13. 10
8. Kyle, Donald G. Sport and Spectacle in the Ancient World. Malden, MA: Blackwell,
2007.
9. Little, W., Fowler, H., and Coulson, J. The Oxford Universal Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford
U.P., 1955.
10. Pindar. Olympian Odes, Pythian Odes. Trans. William H. Race. Cambridge, MA: Har vard
University Press, 1997.
11. Plato. Complete Works. Ed. John M. Cooper. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997. 12. Valavanis,
Panos. “Thoughts on the Historical Origins of the Olympic Games and the Cult of Pelops in
Olympia.” Nikephoros, 19, 2006, 137–152.

14. 11
BAB 2
Review Jurnal
Judul Sport, Philosophy, and the Quest for Knowledge
Penulis Heather L. Reid
Nama Jurnal Journal of the Philosophy of Sport
Volume, Issue,
Tahun, Halaman
Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 2009, 36, 40-49
© 2009 Human Kinetics, Inc
Tujuan Penelitian Mendekripsikan bahwa olahraga merupakan bentuk permainan yang
mencakup filsafat dan demokrasi serta untuk memberikan wawasan
Pada saat yang sama, paradigma bermain ini tampaknya bertentangan dengan dunia modern,
yang menganggap olahraga dengan sangat serius, menempatkannya untuk tujuan yang
disengaja, dan memandangnya (atau setidaknya kompetisi) sebagai hal yang penting untuk
perkembangan manusia
Memang penggunaan modern olahraga kita tampaknya lebih menyerupai Yunani kuno, di
mana kontes atletik (agōn) melayani tujuan politik dan pendidikan tertentu
Huizinga mengklaim bahwa Hellene kuno tidak menyadari karakter autotelik kontes mereka
(5: 30-31); kekhawatiran saya sendiri adalah bahwa kita modern menjadi tidak menyadari -
atau acuh tak acuh terhadap -kontemporer olahraga tujuan.1 Sejauh kita masih menghargai
potensi sosial dan pendidikan olahraga di dunia modern, kita bisa mendapatkan keuntungan
dari studi tentang fungsinya yang sesuai di dunia kuno
Apa yang diungkapkan oleh studi saya sendiri tentang fenomena ini adalah bahwa manfaat
sosial dan pendidikan olahraga tidak berasal dari karakternya yang menyenangkan, tetapi dari
asal-usul filosofisnya sebagai aktivitas pencarian pengetahuan
Seperti filsafat, demokrasi, dan bentuk lain dari pencarian kebenaran kompetitif yang muncul
di Yunani kuno, kontes atletik menampilkan karakteristik pertanyaan otentik, pengujian yang
tidak memihak, dan demonstrasi publik hasil; fitur yang bertahan dalam praktik modern
seperti persidangan di ruang sidang dan pengalaman ilmiah
Olahraga Helenik lahir dengan karakteristik pencarian pengetahuan ini, paling tidak karena ia
dipahami sebagai tanggapan atas pengakuan filosofis yang muncul tentang falibilitas umat
manusia dan hierarki tradisionalnya
Dengan menetapkan metode seleksi yang rasional, tidak memihak, dan diamati secara publik,
baik atletik maupun penyelidikan filosofis berhasil menumbangkan kekuasaan dan otoritas
duniawi, dengan demikian mendorong kesepakatan di antara berbagai komunitas tanpa
menekan itik individu
Kemudian olahraga dan filosofi disesuaikan dengan fungsi pendidikan untuk
mengembangkan kebajikan individu (aretē) atau, dalam bahasa modern, karakter moral

15. 12
Saat kita terus mengejar tujuan sosial dan pendidikan melalui olahraga, penting untuk
memahami bagaimana fungsi-fungsi ini terkait di zaman kuno dengan karakteristik filosofis
olahraga
Memang lebih baik kita menempatkan olahraga untuk melayani umat manusia saat ini,
dengan melihatnya tidak hanya sebagai kesenangan, tetapi juga sebagai filosofis; sebagai
ungkapan dari apa yang disebut Aristoteles sebagai keinginan alami dan universal manusia
untuk belajar dan mengetahui (1: 980a)
Tidak ada yang baru atau revolusioner dalam asosiasi atletik dan kebenaran
Kisah paling awal kami tentang aktivitas olahraga (hingga satu milen nium sebelum
Olimpiade) di antara orang Mesopotamia, Mesir, Asiria, Minoa, dan Het, menunjukkan
bangsawan menggunakan tampilan atletik sebagai bukti publik untuk kedudukan sosial dan
kelayakan untuk memimpin
Tetapi apa yang mereka gulingkan secara khusus adalah standar dogmatis dan relativistik
untuk kebenaran (yaitu, yang dikendalikan oleh pangkat dan kekuasaan duniawi) dan apa
yang mereka promosikan adalah standar yang lebih tidak tegas dan universal, yang mampu
menyelesaikan perselisihan di antara suku yang beragam dan bahkan yang bertikai
Setelah menghadapi klaim agama dan mitologis yang bersaing dari budaya tetangga, para
filsuf Presokratis mencari metode pemahaman alam yang lebih tidak memihak dan setan -
metode yang melewati otoritas duniawi dan hierarki sosial
Impian kejayaan atletik yang masih dipendam oleh kaum muda yang kurang mampu adalah
bukti bahwa subversi sosial tetap menjadi bagian dari konsepsi modern kita tentang olahraga
Tapi kekuatan olahraga untuk menantang hierarki sosial menghadapi erosi - seperti yang
selalu terjadi - oleh mereka yang berkuasa yang akan ditumbangkan
Untuk melestarikan fungsi subversif sosial olahraga, kita harus menghargai hubungannya
dengan pertanyaan otentik, pengujian tidak memihak, dan tampilan publik bukti
Tentu saja Socrates yang membuat konsepsi filsafat ini terkenal dengan menyatakan lebih
dari seabad kemudian bahwa "kebijaksanaan" -nya yang terkenal justru berasal dari
kesadaran bahwa ia kekurangan pengetahuan
Kita tidak dapat benar-benar mencintai dan menginginkan apa yang kita pikir sudah kita
miliki; jadi kita adalah filsuf hanya selama kita mengejar pertanyaan otentik dengan jawaban
yang tidak pasti.4 Olahraga, demikian pula, bersifat filosofis selama ia benar-benar terbuka
untuk menemukan jawaban yang mungkin bertentangan dengan apa yang diyakini orang

16. 13
BAB 3
Kesimpulan dan Saran
3.1 Kesimpulan
Beberapa orang mengatakan bahwa kita harus melihat ke Roma daripada Yunani
untuk melihat nilai-nilai atletik kita sendiri yang tercermin di zaman kuno. Di sana, kata
mereka, olahraga pada dasarnya adalah hiburan yang dinikmati oleh massa penonton yang
tidak aktif dan dieksploitasi oleh politisi yang mencari dukungan publik. Tetapi bahkan
tontonan berdarah dari pertarungan gladiator mempertahankan fungsikebenaran pencariandan
pendidikan yang menghubungkan olahraga dan filosofi. Saat ini, sebagai filsuf olahraga
berusaha untuk memeriksa secara kritis dan meningkatkan persaingan atletik di dunia kita,
mereka harus ingat untuk mengenali kemiripan kuno antara olahraga dan penyelidikan
filosofis. Hubungan ini mengingatkan fungsi sosial dan pendidikan yang penting dari atletik
Yunani kuno dan itu menantang kita untuk menjaga integritas olahraga sebagai praktik
pencarian pengetahuan yang mampu melayani tujuan kemanusiaan yang mulia. Kita harus
menghargai kapasitas olahraga untuk subversi sosial serta potensinya untuk pendidikan
individu.
3.2 Saran
Sebagai penulis saya menyadari bahwa masih banyak kekurangan di dalam penulisan
makalah ini. Dan bagi para pembaca diharapkan untuk menambah pengetahuan dan
wawasannya dengan membaca makalah dari berbagai sumber selain makalah ini.
Link Slide Share

17. 14
Daftar Pustaka
Reid, H. L. (2009). Sport, Philosophy, and the Quest for Knowledge. Jurnal of the
Philosophy of Sport , 36,40-49.