Olympism and himalaism

IF 0.7 Q4 SPORT SCIENCES
A. Pawłucki
{"title":"Olympism and himalaism","authors":"A. Pawłucki","doi":"10.29359/bjhpa.13.spec.iss1.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As the title makes it clear, this article concerns the anthropological issue involving the figures of an Olympic athlete and a Himalayan climber. On a broader, philosophical level, I consider and explain the differences between Olympism and Himalaism, as well as the predecessor of Himalaism, Alpinism. The study aims to explain the reason for the origin of Olympism as a social movement independent of Himalaism. To understand why Olympism and Himalaism should be considered separately, one must go back to the dawn of the two modern events: “visiting the mountains” and “populating the stadiums”. The philosophical method was used in the consideration .The two events never became a unity of being in the anthroposphere, nor a unity of meaning in the axiosphere. The distinctness of each is explained by the metaphysical anthropic principle. Olympism is governed by the strong anthropic principle of the “zone of life”, while Himalaism is governed by the weak anthropic principle of the “zone of death”. The anthropic principle of the Himalayas states that the mountains have those exact properties that enable a person to get to know themselves as an antagonist – a warrior and ultimately a conqueror. For people the initial and boundary conditions of the Himalayas, which are marked by the “zone of death”, are the verge of the anthroposphere in their expansive transgression. Olympism with its anthropically strong 'zone of life' is something different. Only “at” the foot of the mountain can one set up a stadium, engage in an agonistic relationship and get to know oneself as the winner of a good competition or even, if historically necessary, the redeemer of the moral evil in the antagonism of war. In this sense, Olympism becomes a philosophy of moral consolation. The result of the study shows that the Himalayan climber does not participate in the universe of the humanistic culture of the Olympics. Sport climbing to be introduced into the Games of the XXXII Olympics, in 2021 will remind us of this self-referencial existence at the edges of the anthroposphere, as well as the predecessor, of Himalaism, Alpinism.","PeriodicalId":43798,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of Health and Physical Activity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baltic Journal of Health and Physical Activity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29359/bjhpa.13.spec.iss1.13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As the title makes it clear, this article concerns the anthropological issue involving the figures of an Olympic athlete and a Himalayan climber. On a broader, philosophical level, I consider and explain the differences between Olympism and Himalaism, as well as the predecessor of Himalaism, Alpinism. The study aims to explain the reason for the origin of Olympism as a social movement independent of Himalaism. To understand why Olympism and Himalaism should be considered separately, one must go back to the dawn of the two modern events: “visiting the mountains” and “populating the stadiums”. The philosophical method was used in the consideration .The two events never became a unity of being in the anthroposphere, nor a unity of meaning in the axiosphere. The distinctness of each is explained by the metaphysical anthropic principle. Olympism is governed by the strong anthropic principle of the “zone of life”, while Himalaism is governed by the weak anthropic principle of the “zone of death”. The anthropic principle of the Himalayas states that the mountains have those exact properties that enable a person to get to know themselves as an antagonist – a warrior and ultimately a conqueror. For people the initial and boundary conditions of the Himalayas, which are marked by the “zone of death”, are the verge of the anthroposphere in their expansive transgression. Olympism with its anthropically strong 'zone of life' is something different. Only “at” the foot of the mountain can one set up a stadium, engage in an agonistic relationship and get to know oneself as the winner of a good competition or even, if historically necessary, the redeemer of the moral evil in the antagonism of war. In this sense, Olympism becomes a philosophy of moral consolation. The result of the study shows that the Himalayan climber does not participate in the universe of the humanistic culture of the Olympics. Sport climbing to be introduced into the Games of the XXXII Olympics, in 2021 will remind us of this self-referencial existence at the edges of the anthroposphere, as well as the predecessor, of Himalaism, Alpinism.
奥林匹克主义和喜马拉雅山
正如标题所示,这篇文章关注的是一个人类学问题,涉及一位奥林匹克运动员和一位喜马拉雅登山者的形象。在更广泛的哲学层面上,我思考并解释了奥林匹克主义和喜马拉雅主义之间的区别,以及喜马拉雅主义的前身——阿尔卑斯主义。该研究旨在解释奥林匹克主义作为一种独立于喜马拉雅的社会运动的起源原因。要理解为什么奥林匹克主义和喜马拉雅主义应该分开考虑,我们必须回到这两项现代运动的开端:“登山”和“体育场馆”。这两个事件在人类圈中既没有成为存在的统一,在宇宙圈中也没有成为意义的统一。每个人的独特性是由形而上学的人择原理解释的。奥林匹克主义受“生命地带”这一强人择原则支配,而喜马拉雅主义受“死亡地带”这一弱人择原则支配。喜马拉雅山脉的人择原理表明,这些山脉具有确切的属性,使人们能够了解自己是一个对手——一个战士,最终是一个征服者。对人们来说,以“死亡地带”为标志的喜马拉雅山脉的初始条件和边界条件,是人类圈扩张越界的边缘。奥林匹克主义以其人为的强大的“生命区域”是不同的。只有“在”山脚下,人们才能建立一个体育场,从事一种激烈的关系,并了解自己是一场良好竞争的赢家,甚至,如果历史需要的话,是战争对抗中道德邪恶的救赎者。从这个意义上说,奥林匹克主义成为一种道德安慰的哲学。研究结果表明,喜马拉雅登山者不参与宇宙的人文文化的奥林匹克。2021年第32届奥运会将引入运动攀登,这将提醒我们,这种处于人类圈边缘的自我参照存在,以及喜马拉雅的前身——阿尔卑斯主义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信