Two Thoughts About Baseball

Yes, I know the season hasn't begun yet. Still ... Two thoughts.

(1) One of the enduring and endearing facts about baseball is that it doesn't have a clock to run down to zero.

The duration of a game is defined by the rules, independent of any clock. When the last out has been recorded, the game ends.

Much appeal of the game has long been that if one gives one's self to the game, one puts clocks aside.

Another thought -- (2) sports might in general be placed on a spectrum from individualist to collectivist. Skiers in the winter Olympics are individualists. They perform on their own, they win the medals on their own, although their achievements are also chalked up to lists of which nation got how many medals, and they wear the colors of that national "team." Football players (American football) are collectivists. The front lines literally line up shoulder to shoulder. The structure is hierarchical, with one central figure calling out the plays and the other players expected to 'execute.' Baseball? it occupies a unique position in the center.

In baseball we have the outer trappings of individualism. One pitcher is credited as having Won or Lost the game, on running counts of Ws and Ls next to his name. The players are physically quite far apart from each other, especially those outfielders. There is no regular "huddle."

And yet it is beneath the individualist trappings a game of cooperation and coordination. The individualism is for show, the collective effort is for the dough.

That was Jacques Barzun's key point about the sport, in the notorious essay in which he wrote, "Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball, the rules and reality of the game."

Comments

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog