The most basic motivation to participate in sports should be discussed from the philosophical standpoint. The purpose of this paper is to pursue the principle of the lifetime sports. The procedure of this paper is as follows: First of all, the author examines ‘lifetime sports theory’ that has been evolved in Japan. Secondly, the author researches Hans Lenk's ‘lifetime sports theory’. The main discourse is as follows: This paper clarifies the points of the human's independence and originality that have researched here in Japan. However, those studies lack a viewpoint of a man's various stages of experience and the biological perspective on human beings. There are subjects in lifetime sports that should be considered from the point of view of the philosophy of sports. Lenk has shown two points of lifetime sports from the philosophical viewpoint. Those are the potentiality and the difficulty on lifetime sports. In this case, the potentiality is that sports contribute to the life as liberal arts. The difficulty is about the aging of a man. As a result of the examination of the difficulty, the author clarifies that we need another way of life. The author provides ‘pluralistic life’ as technical term for it. There are two types of ‘pluralistic life’. The consequence of this paper is that ‘pluralistic life’ through the physically performance must be the principle of the lifetime sports.

View full abstract

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the potential of “Understanding the other” in learning movement. Though “the other” is merely an object for “myself”, s/he is not only an object but one which is to become a subject leading to “understanding the world”. What aspects of the other can “I” understand? In this paper the author develops an argument as follows: First, the author tries to clarify the points regarding the issue of “the self-the other”. Therein lies a philosophical aporia between the self and the other. We, however, try to communicate with the other through verbal language. The following step the author takes is to investigate the methods of how we in general verbalize our perceptual contents. We have to use metaphorical language in order to communicate with the other. Finally, the author examines the potential of “understanding the other” by means of the method outlined above.
The results are as follows. “I” cannot understand the perceptual contents of the other through learning the movements s/he performs. That is because, even if “I” can perform the same movements as s/he does, “I” cannot prove that the perceptual contents “I” get are equal to what s/he owns. However, when “I” learn movements of the other through employing the metaphorical language, “I” am possibly able to grip the relational structure, re. similarity or difference in relation to her/his perceptual contents. That is to say. “I” somehow understand that the other has the same structure of the body as “I” have.

View full abstract