Friday, July 18, 2008

Free to Exist You and Me

"David Ortiz can’t just be. He has to be David Ortiz," suggests the Herald's Rob Bradford. I am slightly amused that we sort of know what he means, despite it appearing that he is contrasting David Ortiz with existence, which doesn't really make sense.

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.

For on the one hand, we have David Ortiz, existent. Thing in the universe. Occupant of a portion of space-time. Detectable with the senses. On the other hand, we have David Ortiz, David Ortiz. Great thing. Ideal Designated Hitter. Big Papi. Team Leader. Object of incredulity and awe.

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:

becca said...

Interesting compared to the last post - Ortiz as more than a man vs. Pedro as an automaton.

Barry said...

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.

Barry said...

And it's not just a problem that he's solved or created; it's a problem problem.

Soxlosophy said...

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.

Barry said...

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.