Gary Foster

In this paper I look at the reasons for implementing VAR and the effect that it has had on the fans of soccer (football) in particular. I begin with a discussion of why VAR has been adopted in sports in general and in soccer specifically. I then discuss the notion of ‘flow sports’ and try to develop at taxonomy for classifying sports in terms of the relative importance of flow. Following this, I discuss the effect of VAR implementation on flow sports in general before examining the effect of VAR on the fan experience in soccer, a game which I characterize as one of the purist examples of team flow sports. Finally, I discuss the effect of VAR on the fan experience of flow when watching sports. My main contention is that VAR, at least in its current forms, represents an erosion of the flow experience in matches which impoverishes the fan experience. In light of the perceived benefits of VAR for match officiating, I doubt that it will be going away anytime soon. The best that we can hope for is that it evolves so as to cause minimal disruption to the flow in flow sports.

In this paper I look at the reasons for implementing VAR and the effect that it has had on the fans of soccer (football) in particular. I begin with a discussion of why VAR has been adopted in sports in general and in soccer specifically. I then discuss the notion of ‘flow sports’ and try to develop at taxonomy for classifying sports in terms of the relative importance of flow. Following this, I discuss the effect of VAR implementation on flow sports in general before examining the effect of VAR on the fan experience in soccer, a game which I characterize as one of the purist examples of team flow sports. Finally, I discuss the effect of VAR on the fan experience of flow when watching sports. My main contention is that VAR, at least in its current forms, represents an erosion of the flow experience in matches which impoverishes the fan experience. In light of the perceived benefits of VAR for match officiating, I doubt that it will be going away anytime soon. The best that we can hope for is that it evolves so as to cause minimal disruption to the flow in flow sports.

Desire, Love, and Identity: Philosophy of Sex and Love combines classical readings with contemporary articles exploring love and sex as defining features of our identity. This volume includes readings from a wide variety of perspectives, addressing topics such as sexual objectification, sexual identity, the ethics of sex work, love and sex online, friendship, polyamory, and BDSM. Alongside ancient, modern, and contemporary selections are sixteen original contributions written by emerging voices in the field. A wide-ranging, engaging, accessible introduction to the subject, the text includes further readings and discussion questions to promote thought, discussion, and composition on subjects deeply intertwined with students' identities.

Dans Reasons and Persons, Derek Parfit conteste le point de vue de Bernard Williams quant à la relation entre l’amour et l’identité. Williams pensait que dans un monde où plusieurs répliques de son bien-aimé existeraient, notre conception actuelle de l’amour s’avèrerait caduque. Parfit partage l’avis de Williams sur les ramifications de la réplication, mais croit que lorsque la réplication adopte une forme non ramifiée notre vision courante de l’amour demeure intacte. Je pense que Parfit arrive à cette conclusion parce qu’il a mésestimé combien l’affirmation de Williams se rapportait davantage à une vision de l’amour que de l’identité.

ABSTRACT: Romantic love and its predecessor eros have both been characterized as forms of egoistic love. Part of this claim is concerned specifically with the relation between love and knowledge. Real love, it is claimed, is prior to knowledge and is not motivated by it. Romantic love and eros according to this view are egoistic in that they are motivated by a desire for knowledge. Agapic love characterized by bestowal represents a true form of love unmotivated by selfish desires. I argue that such an emphasis on bestowal at the expense of knowledge or appraisal of the beloved is problematic. The knowledge dimension of romantic love, rather than contributing to selfishness, can be a means of freeing us from egoism when we understand identity in its relational or social form.RÉSUMÉ: L'amour romantique et son prédécesseur, Éros, sont tous deux considérés comme des lormes d'amour égoïste. Une partie de cette prétention concerne spécifiquement le lien entre l'amour et la connaissance : l'amour véritable précède la connaissance et n'est pas motivé par elle. Selon ce point de vue, l'amour romantique et Éros sont égoïstes parce qu'ils sont motivés par le désir de connaître. L'amour agapique d'autre part se caractérise par le don; il représente une forme d'amour véritable que ne motive aucun désir égoïste. Cet accent mis sur le don au détriment de la connaissance ou de l'appreciation de l'être aimé se révèle pourtantproblématique. La connaissance, qui caractérise l'amour romantique, représente un moyen de nous libérer de l'égoïsme au lieu de l'alimenter, lorsque nous acquérons une compréhension de l'identité sous sa lorme relationnelle et sociale.

Harry Frankfurt characterizes love as "a disinterested concern for the existence of what is loved, and for what is good for it." As such, he views romantic love as an inauthentic paradigm for love since such love desires reciprocation, sexual gratification and so on. I argue that Frankfurt's conception of love is too general—he does not distinguish between the type of love one has for one's partner, one's country, a moral ideal, etc., it overemphasizes the role of bestowal at the expense of the part played by appraisal and it is insufficiently social. Certain forms of love, romantic love and friendship for instance, are defined largely in terms of reciprocation. For Frankfurt, reciprocation is somewhat of an accidental feature of love. This deficiency in Frankfurt's conception of love can be traced to a problem in his conception of selfhood which I argue is insufficiently social in nature.

The dominant framework for understanding selfhood in contemporary psychology has been one that privileges a highly individualistic conception of self. This is reflected in both the language and approaches of psychotherapy where the influence of contextual factors are given marginal consideration in order to maintain some type of 'objectivity' or 'neutrality' in counseling. We argue that an understanding of selfhood which does not take into account the 'relational' nature of selfhood as well as the cultural or historical context of the client, will likely alienate clients who do not view their self through the individualized lenses of psychology. In order to deal with this problem, we adopt an approach to cultural psychology that views the self as a relational narrative. Such a narrative does not imply an unrestricted freedom to construct our self, but understands the limits to selfhood implied in the web of meanings constitutive of our culture and the web of relations from which our self emerges. 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Much has been written about Sartre’s contribution to the field of psychology. His phenomenology as whole and his proposal for an existential psychoanalysis in particular, have contributed to the field of humanist psychology in general and existential psychology specifically. Less has been written, however, about Sartre’s contribution to the field of moral psychology apart from the occasional analysis of his notion of “bad faith” or the use, by moral philosophers, of some of his colourful examples to illustrate a point. In this article, I want to examine an issue in contemporary moral psychology in light of Sartre’s philosophy, particularly as he develops it in his early major work, Being and Nothingness. The issue that I wish to address is that of practical reason. In contrast to both the neo-Humean and neo-Kantian positions, I want to explore a Sartrean alternative, which situates moral motivation neither in ordinary empirical desires, nor strictly in practical reason. Moral motivation, on a Sartrean account, is rather to be understood in ontological terms as an expression of the desire to be.