It's a bit Platonic, Bradford's statement, encoding, as it does, the difference between mere existence and a higher plane, giving a hint of Plato's contrast of the actual with the Ideal.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d3ddf/d3ddf6a1e4bab37f6a9411ab7fd817b8293278a6" alt=""
So really, there's no pressure on Big Papi at all. All David Ortiz has to do during the pennant race is not exist, but transcend existence into the realm where his true self -David Ortiz- lies; that is, for Bradford, it's not enough simply that David Ortiz- that thing that answers to the name 'David Ortiz'- exists, but that the David Ortiz that exists also exists as David Ortiz.
What I love best about philosophy is the clarity it affords.
5 comments:
Interesting compared to the last post - Ortiz as more than a man vs. Pedro as an automaton.
The author of this blog has told me that he objects to the rhetorical gesture exemplified by the following:
Soxlosophy is not just a blog. It's a blog blog.
Yet, in this post, he invokes the Platonic actual/ideal contrast in a line of argument that includes, "[o]n the other hand, we have David Ortiz, David Ortiz."
I think said author has either solved or created a problem for himself.
And it's not just a problem that he's solved or created; it's a problem problem.
Well, i said 'david ortiz, david ortiz' in contrast to 'david ortiz, existent.'
I do not necessarily endorse such a distinction; I was merely unearthing that which was implicit in Bradford's thingamahoobie.
Said thingamahoobie does exemplify the idea of using a thing to qualify how thingy that thing is.
Thanks for keeping me honest, though.
I am not worried about your endorsement, I am worried about your comprehension.
As long as you are clear that when it's used, it refers to an ideal, we will be fine.
You're not just a ballbreaker, you're a ballbreaker ballbreaker. I am a ballbreaker ballbreaker, too.
Post a Comment