Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Bernard Suits's formalist account shows sport is fully constituted by 'lusory goals' and 'constitutive rules' without invoking shared conventions.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Rules must be *interpreted* and *recognized as binding*—acts requiring shared understanding that constitute convention.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Why these specific rules constitute football rather than tag? Only convention answers; formalism cannot independently.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Rule-following is itself a social practice; Suits conflates rule-structure with the normative framework enabling compliance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Lusory goals (scoring touchdowns, sinking putts) are internally defined by rules, not external social agreement.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Constitutive rules logically precede and generate the game itself; conventions merely ratify what rules establish.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Two isolated players can play chess by rules alone without any shared cultural convention, proving conventions unnecessary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.