Landlord
Banned
I've slowly been reading through the book 'Why Football Matters' by Mark Edmunson (great read, by the way). In it, and also in a lecture on the character building of sport, he has a very insightful commentary on the two types of warriors, or the two mindsets towards sport - Hector and Achilles.
The cliff notes version is that Plato observes that human beings have an innate desire for *thymos* (a thirst for glory), but that it needs to be subordinated to reason, and he then contrasts the two warriors towards the point.
Hector is a fierce fighter who can trade blows with any hero on an unexceptional day. Yet despite his ferocity, Hector is also humane. He is a respective son, a husband who treats his wife (and women in general) as equal, and a tender father.
Hector's appeal is that he can turn it off when he wants/needs, and can be the manslayer during day only to become the humane father at home. In sport, he'd be analogous with the athlete who is gentle and considerate off the field, who never smack talks, complains calls, and the kind of athlete that any dad would love to have his daughter marry.
The problem with Hector is that he loses to Achilles.
Achilles knows nothing other than the thirst for glory and the thrill of savagery. He turns rivers red with his wrath, he murders and disgraces Hector in front of his family, he taunts those begging for mercy, and he has no faculty of reason that would ever make him hesitate. He bests Hector because he has no idea what fear is, only wrath, and Hector is familiar with fear.
So. Who do you want? I guess it should seem an obvious choice to say Hector, but I can't help but think that for a lot of people that is bullsh#t. In a perfect world everyone would, hopefully, choose Hector. But we don't live in a vacuum, and it seems that Achilles pays off in the day and age of TV and money dominating every element of sport. I guess the question in my head that pierces at the heart of the matter is, "Would you want Hector if you knew he couldn't win?" Whether or not we think it's possible to win with Hector is a different question, but also a worthwhile one.
Achilles is the literal definition of "Win at all costs." It's very tempting to want Achilles on your side, because it doesn't cost *you* anything, even if it costs him everything (Michael Jordan is a great example of Achilles - since leaving basketball, he's found his life completely dissatisfying and empty). Is it worth it? We've all heard tons of commentary about how Osborne didn't win championships until he recruited the less choir boy players. Is it an indictment on us as fans to desire it at the expense of others' personhood?
I realize this is a bit disjointed in thought but hopefully the idea can spark conversations more than my poor questions can.
The cliff notes version is that Plato observes that human beings have an innate desire for *thymos* (a thirst for glory), but that it needs to be subordinated to reason, and he then contrasts the two warriors towards the point.
Hector is a fierce fighter who can trade blows with any hero on an unexceptional day. Yet despite his ferocity, Hector is also humane. He is a respective son, a husband who treats his wife (and women in general) as equal, and a tender father.
Hector's appeal is that he can turn it off when he wants/needs, and can be the manslayer during day only to become the humane father at home. In sport, he'd be analogous with the athlete who is gentle and considerate off the field, who never smack talks, complains calls, and the kind of athlete that any dad would love to have his daughter marry.
The problem with Hector is that he loses to Achilles.
Achilles knows nothing other than the thirst for glory and the thrill of savagery. He turns rivers red with his wrath, he murders and disgraces Hector in front of his family, he taunts those begging for mercy, and he has no faculty of reason that would ever make him hesitate. He bests Hector because he has no idea what fear is, only wrath, and Hector is familiar with fear.
So. Who do you want? I guess it should seem an obvious choice to say Hector, but I can't help but think that for a lot of people that is bullsh#t. In a perfect world everyone would, hopefully, choose Hector. But we don't live in a vacuum, and it seems that Achilles pays off in the day and age of TV and money dominating every element of sport. I guess the question in my head that pierces at the heart of the matter is, "Would you want Hector if you knew he couldn't win?" Whether or not we think it's possible to win with Hector is a different question, but also a worthwhile one.
Achilles is the literal definition of "Win at all costs." It's very tempting to want Achilles on your side, because it doesn't cost *you* anything, even if it costs him everything (Michael Jordan is a great example of Achilles - since leaving basketball, he's found his life completely dissatisfying and empty). Is it worth it? We've all heard tons of commentary about how Osborne didn't win championships until he recruited the less choir boy players. Is it an indictment on us as fans to desire it at the expense of others' personhood?
I realize this is a bit disjointed in thought but hopefully the idea can spark conversations more than my poor questions can.
Last edited by a moderator:
