Euth. I do not understand your meaning, Socrates.
Maybe a baseball analogy would help:
"There are moderates who revere the tradition they were raised in, simply because it is their tradition, and who are prepared to campaign, tentatively, for the details of their tradition, simply because, in the marketplace of ideas, somebody should stick up for each tradition until we can sort out the good from the better and settle for the best we can find, all things considered. That is like allegiance to a sports team, and it, too, can give meaning to a life — if not taken too seriously. I am a Red Sox fan, simply because I grew up in the Boston area and have happy memories of Ted Williams, Jimmy Piersall, Carl Yastrzemski, Pudge Fisk, and Wade Boggs, among others. My allegiance to the Red Sox is enthusiastic, but cheerfully arbitrary and undeluded. The Red Sox aren't my team because they are, in fact, the Best; they are the Best (in my eyes) because they are my team." Dan Dennett
Arbitrariness has its place, I guess. Who else should you root for than "your team"? But is life really a ballgame?
2 comments:
I think you should always root for your team, even if they're not the best, if you genuinely believe in their potential, but you shouldn't be surprised or disappointed when they lose. You can root for them without becoming delusional. Any unearned and therefore unreasonable expectations aren't fair to them or you.
That's like being disappointed in the groundhog when there's 6 more weeks of winter.
Yes but... how did your team get to be your team? In my case, heavy childhood indoctrination. I'd like to think I've found adult reasons for being a Cardinals' fan, but I suspect they're only rationalizations. Please let me know your thought on this, I'm supposed to say something on the subject at the "Baseball in Literature & Culture" Conference next month. (P.S. Sorry about the Twins & Vikes! Or is it Brewers & Packers?)
Post a Comment