General Twitter Thread

[dom9]

theres a clip of the interview somewhere, where its in its proper context or possibly him discussing the quote cant remember

I've heard the audio of the original quote many times, and I'm not sure how anyone could conclude definitively either way tbh. I've not heard him discussing it further though. If anyone has that, it would be great to hear in all honestly.

[Red_Polo]

You can see the clip on YouTube, during an interview whilst discussing his regret of not spending enough time with his family due to his devotion to football

Gist of it was someone had told him he took football as seriously as life and death, and that he'd quipped it was more important than that, an attitude he came to regret immensely.

From that it would seem the quote is misused on two levels. First, in that the bit about life and death was actually put to him by someone else. Second, that the constant regurgitation of this quote to stress the value of seeing the game as everything neglects the fact the only reason we know about the comment was when he was talking about how much he regretted that attitude!

[Neil Young]

Anyway it doesn't really matter whether or not he was joking.

It's patently obvious there are plenty of far more important things than football, as he himself acknowledged.

Anyone can get carried away by their passion for something but, in the cold light of day, it's just a game.

[Bender]

Im hearing Steve Clarke lined up for WBA job. Trying to get confirmation. @BBCSport @Iandennisbbc 1 hour ago

[red g]

at 1/40 with the bookies. its nailed on by the look of things

[dww]

Anyway it doesn't really matter whether or not he was joking.

It's patently obvious there are plenty of far more important things than football, as he himself acknowledged.

Anyone can get carried away by their passion for something but, in the cold light of day, it's just a game.

Obvious, self affirming verity or widely held assumption made by those wishing to impart some meaning to existence? Surely one could conceive of some form of sport related spin on Epicurean hedonism that would not be trivially refuted?

[Neil Young]

In my experience, the sole pursuit of pleasure is fundamentally misguided. It's an effect or a by-product, not an activity in itself.

Football, like anything, human construction or not, can yield pleasure but it is artificial, a substitute for doing, for achieving, for action.

So the pleasure of football for footballers is real and meaningful but the pleasure of football for spectators is vicarious, short-lived and inconsequential, a shockwave of delight that soon passes, leaving us yet more bereft and empty than before, like a hit from a stimulant that briefly tantalises our dopamine receptors, only to recede like a broken wave, dying unlamented on a smooth and empty beach.

[dww]

In my experience, the sole pursuit of pleasure is fundamentally misguided. It's an effect or a by-product, not an activity in itself.

Football, like anything, human construction or not, can yield pleasure but it is artificial, a substitute for doing, for achieving, for action.

So the pleasure of football for footballers is real and meaningful but the pleasure of football for spectators is vicarious, short-lived and inconsequential, a shockwave of delight that soon passes, leaving us yet more bereft and empty than before, like a hit from a stimulant that briefly tantalises our dopamine receptors, only to recede like a broken wave, dying unlamented on a smooth and empty beach.

How does one separate action/achievement from any other human construction?

[lickedlollipop]

I hope Defoe comes back and that everything will be OK.

[Neil Young]

How does one separate action/achievement from any other human construction?

This really is very straightforward.

The essential Cartesian truth, cogito, is an active verb, and existence is predicated on it. Clearly the reverse, sum ergo cogito, is not valid - for example, Nigel.

Accordingly, to feel alive we must live, and living is doing, not being.

If we take a semantic approach to the meaning of football, then the grammatical, one might even say lexical, paradigms point us in the right direction, i.e. I play football versus I am a supporter.

All human constructions have this essential dualism, where the first attribute is life-affirming and creative, while the second is pale, reactive and the hallmark of the intellectually stunted. To give three examples:

I do or I am.

I play or I watch.

I write my own philosophical-sounding metabollocks on the internet or I read Neil's philosophical-sounding metabollocks on the internet.

[dww]

This really is very straightforward.

The essential Cartesian truth, cogito, is an active verb, and existence is predicated on it. Clearly the reverse, sum ergo cogito, is not valid - for example, Nigel.

Accordingly, to feel alive we must live, and living is doing, not being.

If we take a semantic approach to the meaning of football, then the grammatical, one might even say lexical, paradigms point us in the right direction, i.e. I play football versus I am a supporter.

All human constructions have this essential dualism, where the first attribute is life-affirming and creative, while the second is pale, reactive and the hallmark of the intellectually stunted. To give three examples:

I do or I am.

I play or I watch.

I write my own philosophical-sounding metabollocks on the internet or I read Neil's philosophical-sounding metabollocks on the internet.

I think this seems like a coherent argument for the pressing game. I feel it would almost certainly convince Joey Barton if not necessarily Socrates (or Descarte).

I like to hope that some other posters will join in next week when we discuss zonal marking and the concept of ataraxia.

[Lee]

[colin85]

[Icon]

What utter bollocks Neil...

[Neil Young]

I think this seems like a coherent argument for the pressing game. I feel it would almost certainly convince Joey Barton if not necessarily Socrates (or Descarte).

I like to hope that some other posters will join in next week when we discuss
zonal marking and the concept of ataraxia.

Certainly it indicates of a desirability of achieving a synthesis between the offensive fluidity of John Rawls' incorporation of tika taka within a coherent framework of social justice and the defensive and intrinsically Aristotelian approach to the role of the forward-lying defensive harasser.

However I fear too few posters on Est have any real appreciation or even awareness of ataraxia (e.g. FSG threads, passim).