Some Suitsian Remarks on A Hartian Conception of Sport

Authors

  • Filip Kobiela University of Physical Education in Krakow, Polonia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52292/j.dsc.2025.4583

Keywords:

Hart, Suits, sport, game, rules, judging, refereeing

Abstract

The paper presents some comments on José Luis Pérez Triviño’s Hartian conception of sport. In these remarks, I will draw on the philosophy of Bernard Suits, whose thought also plays an important role in Pérez-Triviño’s consideration. In the first part, I comment on the analogy between sport and law, which is the main conceptual vehicle of Pérez Triviño’s consideration, and I point out some of the limitations of this analogy. Some of these are particularly interesting in the light of Suits’ conceptual distinctions. In the second part, I reconstruct and comment on the Pérez Triviño’s characterisation of sport. This characteristic is based on an essentialist structure that might be called the Suits-Parry model of the definition of sport. In the third part, I propose an interpretation of Suits’ formalism, that does not necessarily conflict with other theories of sport -conventionalism and interpretivism. I also reconstruct Suits’ position on adjudication in sport and compare it with the Pérez-Triviño position. It turns out that Suits’ formalism is not one of the two extremes between
which the Hartian conception of sport is to be located. In the concluding remarks, I suggest that because of the indicated links with Suits’ philosophy, there are also some important neo-Suitsian elements in Perez Trivino’s Hartian conception of sport.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Filip Kobiela, University of Physical Education in Krakow, Polonia

Doctor en Filosofía, Jagiellonian University, Cracóvia, Polonia. Profesor asistente, University of Physical Culture, Cracóvia, Polonia.

References

Boyd, M. (2014). Riding the Bench – a Look at Sports Metaphors in Judicial Opinions. Harvard Journal of Sports & Entertainment Law, 5(2), 245-264.

Caillois, R. (2001). Man, Play and Games. USA: University of Illinois Press.

Hart, H. L. A. (1994). The Concept of Law (2nd Ed). Oxford: New York: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.

Huizinga, J. (1980). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. London, Boston and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Kobiela, F. (2016). The nature of sport and its relation to the aesthetic dimension of sport. Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Kinantropologica, 52(2), 75-84.

Kobiela, F. (2018). Should chess and other mind sports be regarded as sports? Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 45(3), 279-295.

Parry, J. (2018). E-Sports Are not Sports. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 13(1), 3-18. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2018.1489419

Pérez Triviño, J. L. (2025). A Hartian Conception of Sport. Discusiones.

Searle, J. (1998). Mind, Language and Society: Philosophy in the Real World. Nueva York: Basic Books.

Suits, B. (1973). The Elements of Sport. En R. Osterhoudt (ed.), The philosophy of sport: A collection of original essays (pp. 9-19). Springfield, IL.: Thomas.

Suits, B. (1988). Tricky Triad: Games, Play, and Sport. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 15(1), 1-9. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.1988.9714457

Suits, B. (2014). The Grasshopper, Games Life and Utopia. Peterborough, CA: Broadview Press.

Vossen, D. (2004). The Nature and Classification of Games. Avante, 10(1),53-68.

Published

2025-05-26

How to Cite

Kobiela, F. (2025). Some Suitsian Remarks on A Hartian Conception of Sport. Discusiones, 34(1), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.52292/j.dsc.2025.4583