Aristotle -- first and second potentialities and actualities.

[guilalah]

There's an Aristotelean idea that I think is useful in considering the potentialities and actuality of boxers; this is the notion of first potential, first actuality/second potential, and second actuality.


For instance, someone may be capable of learning to speak French; this is thier first potential of speaking French.


If the person knows how to speak French, this is the first actuality -- the actualization of their first potential -- of speaking French. Also, knowing how to speak French is a sort of second potential -- as a person who knows how to speak French has the potential of actually speaking French.


To actually be speaking French, then, is the second actuality -- the actualization of the first potential -- of speaking French.


And I think that, with boxers, there is that first potentiality -- their ability to aquire the various perfections (conditioning, techniques, tactics, strategy, virtues of the will, ect.) necessary to be a boxer; and there is the first actuality/second potential of having aquired these various qualities; and there is the second actuality of actually excercising these qualities.


Now, as Aquinas might say, what is first in being is last in knowing, and what is first in knowing is last in being.


From the stand point of being, unless there is the first potential, the potential for receiving a boxers various perfections, the boxer cannot actualize that first potential (as first actuality); and unless the boxer has the first actuality, ie the various perfections a boxer must have, they will not have the second potential, which is the potential of the second act of boxing, ie to be actually boxing.


On the other hand -- from the standpoint of our knowing -- it is from knowing second act that we can infer second potential; and, having infered second potential (which is only logically, not really, different from first act) we may infere first potential.


So, from the standpoint of knowing whether someone can speak French (first actuality), was ask them to actually speak French (second actuality); for the first actuality is the second potential, the potential of the second actuality; and where the second act is, the second potential (and thus the first act) must be.


Note, though, that the absence of second act does not disprove the existence of first act; for a person who is not currently speaking French may not be doing so either because they don't know how, or they may know how but choose not to, or they may be in some state (asleep, gagged, ect.) in which even a person who knows how to speak French cannot actually speak.


Similarly, the absence of first act does not disprove the existence of first potential; for a person who does not know how to speak French may yet be capable of learning to do so.


Two great sins in evaluating boxers are:


1) Epistemologically,to try to know their potentialities (first or second) directly, ie apart from the boxers actual operation (second actuality) as a boxer.


2) Ontologically, to try to reduce their various potentialities and actualities all to second actuality -- as though only second actuality were 'objective' (ie, part of the object, known or knowable by a subject (whether directly or by inference), and the same for everyone).

[McGrain]

The bellboobersnatcher is in the fellfurbaround.

[guilalah]

McGrain ..... for this thread, I'm just happy to get a reply!


Thank you

[ChrisPontius]

I'll let Kurgan put my thoughts on this subject into words.

[McGrain]

McGrain ..... for this thread, I'm just happy to get a reply!


Thank you

I'll let Kurgan put my thoughts on this subject into words.


:lol:

[ricardinho]

And I thought my philosophy degree would have no real world applications...

[Shake]

What you're essentially saying, if I understand you correctly, is that someone may know how to box great, and thus has the potential to box great, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he will box great or be a great boxer ever in his life. Like Cintron, who has been given all the physical tools and technical tutelage to box great, yet probably never will.

I´m not actually sure if my interpretation is correct.

[flamengo]

If a person has the aquisites, combined with the adventure of complimenting them via actions... I guess the potential is met.

IN PLAIN ENGLISH, someone has to be in the woods to hear the tree fall.

[mcvey]

If a person has the aquisites, combined with the adventure of complimenting them via actions... I guess the potential is met.

IN PLAIN ENGLISH, someone has to be in the woods to hear the tree fall.
An opposite would be Spike Milligan's cure for sea sickness."sit under a tree".:yep

[ricardinho]

To simplify this we must agree on simple definitions


potential is the highest level of greatness attainable by a fighter

actuality is the present state of being of the fighter


in order to move from potentiality to actuality (or acutlaize his potential) a fighter must develop the virtues necessary to achieve his end. This is where character comes in. It is the fighters mental states that allow him to achieve his actuality.

human beings never are fully actualized (although they in theory could actualize their potential)because by St. Thomas Aquinas' definition only God is pure Actuality with no potentiality. So no fighter can be purely actualized.

------------
On the other side of the coin we can take a Bruce Lee view. That we are an onion with many similar layers. Furthermore, after tearing through these similiar layers we eventually unearth our true self. Last of all, through fighting we can express this self.

[guilalah]

Thanks for the replies. I'll try to get to them in the next few days.

[guilalah]

Here's something I copied from CyberBoxingZone ....

poster 10-8, post #16, seems to me to roughly say 'look at the second potentiality (actual punches) Corbett is displaying .... and he shows the same second potentialities in actual contests'. The implication is that some of Corbett's second potentialities/first actualities (skills) might not have had the potential to be determined to second actualities (actual punches) that would have made him competitive with his great succesors.

HE Grant , post #18, acknowledges the criticism, but roughly says what he sees makes him think that Corbett, in modern circumstances, had a first potential (a potential to perfect himself in terms of skills, habits, qualities, ect) where by could have first-actualized himself (aquired skills, ect.) so as to perform (second-actualize) in a way that would have been very competitive.


If I am not putting too many words into the poster's mouths :hey
I agree with both their insights


[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])



[Only registered and activated users can see links] ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

apollack post #15

Take a look at Ali and Frazier shadowboxing at the same age some time. Corbett looks quick, active and sharp compared to their pathetic display. If that was all you had or saw of Ali and Frazier, you would never in your wildest dreams fathom how good they were in their primes. The bottom line is that you cannot really tell just how good Ali, Frazier, and Corbett were in their primes based on these age-old clips. Corbett and Tunney are obviously fooling around and working with each other in a half playful effort for the camera. Furthermore, if you watch the Corbett-Courtney clip projected at the correct speed (as I have), he looks smooth, quick, and sharp, just like an Ali or Tunney. Also, even the primary source reports said Corbett clowned and played around with Courtney for a while just to help Edison make a better record for the camera. When Corbett got down to serious business, he dropped Courtney several times. That available clip of the Courtney bout is obviously early on, when Corbett was playing around with him.

That said, no one ever said Corbett was a puncher, relying more on speed and elusiveness than anything. His form does leave something to be desired, hence guys like Fitz always dogging on him and criticizing his punch technique for not getting his full body behind his blows, more concerned with getting away and making you miss, generally content to tap you to death. You can somewhat see that in this clip with Tunney. But if you watch Corbett nail Courtney and Fitz with a few nice rights, you'll realize that he did have at least some pop when he wanted to sit down and nail you. That's what they said back then too - that Corbett could punch, but rarely sat down on his punches except upon certain moments in his fights.

10-8 post #16

Adam, the way Corbett throws almost a straight arm left hook, the far away straight arm uppercut, cocks and pulls back the left before throwing a jab, the chin up in the air, the circular rotation of the hands, the dropping of the hands and thrusting out the head as some kind of feint etc....these are things that have been captured before in actual fights from that era. Corbett doesn't look a whole hell of a lot different if at all in this clip from the actual film I've seen of him.


HE GRant post #17
... I can easily see that physical specimen adjusted to modern technics and be(ing) a hell of a presence.

[teeto]

I actually took a look at the opening post, and as i read through it i became intrigued, i kept with it all the way through and was not lost or confused i'm glad to say.

By the way, on what Ricardinho said about through fighting we express ourselves (after the Bruce Lee insight), i might be of distaste here with this one, but for those of you who know about English football, here is something that fits in a little with that i think.

Arsene Wenger is a football manager who sets up his team to only play what is known as 'total football', supposedly innovated by the dutch. He does no tactics, Arsene, no defending leads when his team is ahead on the scoresheet, just only wants his eleven men to play beautiful football and pass and move, attack, attack, attack, he is a stubbern man, and though his team is not successful right now, he believes his philosophy is football's right one.

He once said, (along these lines), 'on the football field a player cannot hide his true character. Behind closed doors he can hide, but on the football pitch there is no hiding and he always expresses his true self, his character is revealed'

I know that's not to do with the opening post, but is somewhat interlinked with Ricardinho's last sentence. I do think, and i think it should go without saying, that it is more apparent within boxing though, because of the nature of the sport, and the fact it is not a team game, like Naseem Hamed once said- 'when that bell rings for round 1, it is the loneliest place in the world'. The warrior is always revealed. But the level of passion that goes hand in hand with football at the highest level, when players are battling for trophies for their beloved fans to be made proud, well not all of the time in today's game, but still it happens, character is revealed.

By the way, i think that in terms of the opening post, boxing is a dam fine example of explaining the whole thing, because in boxing there are many levels of greatness, so potential is potentially actualised more than once within the same being, Manny Paquiao is showing that now.

[ricardinho]

I actually took a look at the opening post, and as i read through it i became intrigued, i kept with it all the way through and was not lost or confused i'm glad to say.

By the way, on what Ricardinho said about through fighting we express ourselves (after the Bruce Lee insight), i might be of distaste here with this one, but for those of you who know about English football, here is something that fits in a little with that i think.

Arsene Wenger is a football manager who sets up his team to only play what is known as 'total football', supposedly innovated by the dutch. He does no tactics, Arsene, no defending leads when his team is ahead on the scoresheet, just only wants his eleven men to play beautiful football and pass and move, attack, attack, attack, he is a stubbern man, and though his team is not successful right now, he believes his philosophy is football's right one.

He once said, (along these lines), 'on the football field a player cannot hide his true character. Behind closed doors he can hide, but on the football pitch there is no hiding and he always expresses his true self, his character is revealed'

I know that's not to do with the opening post, but is somewhat interlinked with Ricardinho's last sentence. I do think, and i think it should go without saying, that it is more apparent within boxing though, because of the nature of the sport, and the fact it is not a team game, like Naseem Hamed once said- 'when that bell rings for round 1, it is the loneliest place in the world'. The warrior is always revealed. But the level of passion that goes hand in hand with football at the highest level, when players are battling for trophies for their beloved fans to be made proud, well not all of the time in today's game, but still it happens, character is revealed.

By the way, i think that in terms of the opening post, boxing is a dam fine example of explaining the whole thing, because in boxing there are many levels of greatness, so potential is potentially actualised more than once within the same being, Manny Paquiao is showing that now.

Kudos!!! Very good post although I dont agree with your view it is a solid understanding and well constructed cagreement. I had no idea that Arsene Wenger played football like that. Thanks, I will watch some games now. I love futbol as well. Back to boxing---and I guess Aristotle. I think that this post is the first time I ever got philosophical on boxing. I have had to look at the sport differantly so I think this thread although a bit too brainy was an excellent idea.

[teeto]

Kudos!!! Very good post although I dont agree with your view it is a solid understanding and well constructed cagreement. I had no idea that Arsene Wenger played football like that. Thanks, I will watch some games now. I love futbol as well. Back to boxing---and I guess Aristotle. I think that this post is the first time I ever got philosophical on boxing. I have had to look at the sport differantly so I think this thread although a bit too brainy was an excellent idea.
Haha, yes thanks, not sure i agree with it too much either, it was jsut sort of a food for thought type insight. I think Wenger is a bit soft in the head for playing football the way he does, it means he loses a lot of games because his players attack so much they get countered plenty, but he sees it as 'the right way to pla football', a very stubbern man indeed. But if you want to check out his beautiful football, his stuff from about 2004 was amazing.

Anyway, i'm out for the night now, but thanks for the replay, Bye for now.

[kosaros]

I had a law exam yesterday and I had to discuss Aristotle.

[The Kurgan]

There's a reason why Aristotle doesn't play a big role in modern science: his stuff is obsolete. Detailed accounts of the metaphysics of causation are about as archaic as Descartes' homoculi.

One has to admire Aristotle being so ahead of his time and he was probably the smartest human being ever, but the world is (blissfully) less complex than you'd guess from his Physics or Metaphysics.