Life of Pi Review

For this week’s movie I chose Ang Lee’s Life of Pi. I read the book for pleasure once in junior high and for an English class in my freshman year of high school, and I have always loved the story. Watching the movie reminded me why Yann Martel’s book will be taught to my children and grandchildren- as Fitzgerald’s Gatsby was taught to my parents and me. From the broadest perspective, Piscine (Pissing) Patel’s story is an incredibly comprehensive example of a metaphor- one that provides, upon inspection, explanations for all facets of the device. When viewing the book/film from through a religion-analyzing lens, there are multiple parts of the story that stand out as worthy of delving into. The one I am going to pick for this particular blog post occurs at the end of the story, when present-day Pi Patel reveals that, in order to make reporters believe his story, he merely has to say that the actions of the animals were actions of people. He then asks the reporter which story he prefers, to which the reporter replies “The one with the tiger.” Pi nods his head and thanks the reporter. My interpretation of this moment, plot-wise, is that it reveals that Pi, in order to cope with his life on the boat, consciously began to view the other humans as escaped animals. This would have held value for Pi superficially in escaping loneliness and boredom, and in a deeper sense by helping him deal with the experience of watching humans kill and eat one another. Because most animals do not share the ability to reason with humans (as opposed to animalistic and vegetative qualities), imagining animals eating one another is much less traumatizing than cannibalism- in fact, the reason why we think animals acting violently is disturbing is most likely due to the fact that humans anthropomorphize animals to a degree much greater than is logical (the interactions with Pi, Pi’s father, and Richard Parker at the beginning of the movie do much to expand this thought, but that would be the topic of another blog). Simply put, Pi voluntarily begins to believe things that are contrary to his sense perception and reason in order to reap the benefits of their healing effects on his psyche. Enter, Bertrand Russell.

In his 1927 speech “Why I Am Not A Christian,” British philosopher Bertrand Russell briefly explains the process by which he decided to set aside his belief in Christian dogmas and choose instead to follow science and tangible fact in his pursuit of knowledge. He briefly explains some of the most popular reasons that people have cited throughout history as why they believe in God, the immortal, and the ultimate benevolence of Jesus Christ. Russell, after each description, tears down the specific argument as either a logical fallacy or a moral inconsistency. Finally, Russell concludes with his belief that organized Christian religion-as organized in churches across the globe-has been the primary force acting against moral development among human beings. This is, in part, due to some of Christ’s teachings about hell and the underworld, and mostly to do with the fact that religion is created and believed out of a fear for the unknown. Russell poses that cruelty and religion are linked by their source in this regard. At the end of the speech Russell urges people to suspend their faith in religion and instead follow the path of fact and reason. So, the question is, how would Russell view the actions of Pi Patel, and how accurately does Pi’s creation of a false reality mimic one Christian believing in God and immortality?

Martel had to have had something in mind when he created the “reveal” at the end of Pi’s story. In my mind, it seems like the most likely reason was to provide a commentary on belief in general-its utility-based purposes in terms of a possibly beneficent effect on one’s life. Its obvious that Russell disagrees with this on a fundamental level, but in the case of Patel, which is obviously a unique one, can an exception be made? Also, Russell writes the essay specifically against the Christian religion, so would Patel’s general ideology (ideologies) show a more moral approach to religion (i.e., trying to live up to those “good” maxims that Russell believes Jesus promoted, and picking the “good” parts out of each religion) and relieve him of blame for creating the animal fallacy on the boat? I do not know if I have asked the right questions so far, but surely there is something to be explored in a relationship between Russell’s speech and the “reveal” in Life of Pi. Any thoughts?

Give Me That Old Time Religion

“He who brings strife into his household will only inherit the wind.” Proverbs 11:29

Some might say that that the two fields that are most opposed to one another within academia would be science and religion (that is, of course, if one considers religion worthy of a place in academia at all). The institution that is fundamentalist evangelical Christianity has set itself up politically as well over the past century, in the debates concerning slavery, then suffrage, and to date the matter of granting civil unions to same-sex partnerships. The subject of the 1960 film Inherit the Wind is a time in history when both the political oppositional function of the Christian Church and the natural tension between religion and modern science became prevalent. The film is a creative adaptation of the legal prosecution of Hillsboro, Tennessee, high school biology teacher Bertram Cates, who insisted on teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution despite the state law, which regulated the teaching of intelligent design. Over the course of the film, each of the characters struggles with the tension between the Bible’s teachings and the role of new science in regard to faith; while this conflict seems insurmountably broad, the real crux of the matter in this film is the same matter addressed in the beginning of Bertrand Russell’s essay, “Why I am Not a Christian,” namely what constitutes a Christian. 

Russell provides a potential definition for a Christian that is as condensed and simplified as he believes can be without losing the nature of being a Christian. According to this definition, for a person to be a Christian they must (1) believe in God and immortality, and (2) believe that Christ was “if not divine, at least the best and the wisest of men.” (603) Though he has boiled down the nature of what it is to be a Christian (and fairly successfully, from my own Christian perspective), he then immediately acknowledges that this “elastic definition” of Christianity realistically will not work. Instead, since the time the institution that is the Christian Church (that is the Church, not Christianity), there have been other doctrinal requirements established by church and political leaders.  These creeds and dogmas have evolved as Christianity evolved into hundreds of sects and denominations and grew popular in different world cultures. This tension, the fine line between being a Christian and associating with the Christian Church, is perhaps more prevalent in this film than the cultural myth of the eternal battle between science and religion.  It may seem to some that this distinction would not have repercussions for the validity of Christianity or religion at all; indeed, there have been scholars throughout the ages who have denounced religion in favor of reason, thereby implying that there cannot be reason within religion (or that religious people are by their adherence to a religion not employing their reason).

It is more so this matter at stake in Inherit the Wind. In her hysterical testimony during Cates trial, Cates fiancée and Reverend Brown’s daughter Rachel explains that Cates’ insistence on teaching evolution (or more broadly his decision to leave the community church) does not demonstrate a departure from God, only a departure from Christianity or the church proper. At the conclusion of the film, Cates’ lawyer Mr. Henry Drummond demonstrates a similar adherence to moderate Christian beliefs when he weighs the Bible and Darwin’s book in his hands (as if on a scale) and ultimately leaves with the two books stacked together in his arms. The symbolism of this final scene is clear; Drummond, like his client, would at least fall into the elastic definition of being a Christian, though he clearly is opposed to the Christian institution as it manifests in Hillsboro.

Throughout the proceedings, Drummond’s contention is at its core the same as that of philosophers: a man has a right to think. The subtext of this argument is that the institution of Christian religion does not allow a person to think freely (as demonstrated by the behavior of the townspeople in most of the film). Indeed, the doctrine and dogma of institutionalized religion restrict the way a man or woman might think, however perhaps there would be less opposition between the scientific and philosophical communities and the religious if the more elastic definition of Christian (or any other religious organization) could be applied. The problem of using this elastic definition for Christian or for any religious adherent is that such a broad definition removes things like ethical codes and cosmological answers that religious people find comforting in religion. There are many writings like Russells that can speak to the rational reasons not to agree with Christianity, and more that speak against religion as a whole; I wonder if there might be a difference if there weren’t as many doctrinal differences to navigate in considering whether religious belief can be considered rational at all.

Omnipotence and Evil in Dogma

Dogma (1999) is a Kevin Smith film about faith and religion. The overall plot of the movie centers around a woman’s pilgrimage to save the universe from being unmade. Two angels, Bartleby and Loki, were cast out of Heaven for defying God’s will. They find out that there is a loophole being promoted by the Catholic Church. On the centennial, a certain archway is being raised in New Jersey that would provide forgiveness for anyone’s sins who chooses to walk beneath it. If the angels walk beneath they can be forgiven, and if they become mortal and die afterwards then they can theoretically go back to heaven. As we find out, this process would prove the infallibility of God, and thus unmake existence. Due to this, Bethany is called upon by the angel Metatron to stop these two fallen angels because she is the last descendant of Christ. Along the way, she meets two prophets, an apostle, and a muse to help her way, while a demon (ex-muse) attempts to stop them.

            Bethany begins the film with many doubts about her faith. She feels apathetic and actively misses having the blind faith of a child. Throughout the film we discover Bethany’s crisis of faith ultimately stems from the question that J.L. Mackie delves into in his essay Evil and Omnipotence. Why is there evil in the world if God is ultimately Good, as well as omnipotent? Having these three things be true is a paradox, because if God is Omnipotent and Good, he would destroy all Evil. If God is Good and there is Evil in the world, then he must not be omnipotent. If God is Omnipotent and there is Evil in the world, then he cannot be Good. While this is a very convincing logical argument that basically discredits Christianity in the way in which we’ve interpreted it, it is also a question asked by common people all the time. It is this question that has driven Bethany to her crises of faith. This question is not really answered in the film. Bethany receives proof of God, heaven, and hell directly, and so no philosophy was necessary to discount this essential logical problem.

            However, throughout the film there is little that appears to be truly evil. The viewer is made to pity the fallen angels and their plight. They are truly pitiful in their emptiness and rage. Their actions seem like the tantrums of children, just seeking attention from a beloved parent figure. Even the demon Azrael becomes pitiful. His existence is so horrible that he would unmake all of existence just to be free of it. While these characters ultimately act in horrible ways, they are extremely relatable. This gives reason and understanding to their actions, and no longer lets the reader just assume that they are just Evil. Through this story the lines of Good and Evil are blurred, and so the question of how can God exist with this much Evil in the world is no longer relevant, because what really is Evil? While I don’t think J.L. Mackie would agree with this response, I think this is an idea that appeals to many people. Can Evil really exist when everyone is acting through basic human emotions? Can you really blame someone for wanting to go home anyway possible? I think it’s an interesting line of debate.

            I also found it interesting that while the movie makes a clear point to claim that it’s the ideas that matter and not the religion, it focuses very specifically on Catholicism. I realize that the reason behind this was likely because of a connection between Catholicism and Kevin Smith (the writer and director), but it’s interesting because the Catholic religion specifically results in the fallacy of Evil and an Omnipotent and Good God. In the Hebrew Bible God is not portrayed as perfectly Good, in fact He is portrayed as vengeful and unforgiving. In many polytheistic religions, gods are not shown to be necessarily Good either. While this film looks at the topic from a Catholic point of view, it is also brings into question whether God is perfectly Good. Was it right that She condoned the mass genocide of people through Loki? Was it right to cast down Azrael for remaining neutral in the war? Is it right to allow any of the injustices that go on in the world? Is the divide between angels and man just? Most of the questions are asked by Bartleby, who becomes unreliable after he finds out Bethany may be trying to kill him and Loki for wanting to return home. While he seems the most philosophical of all the characters, questioning the morality of God’s decisions, he then turns into a megalomaniacal character bent on returning home, and thus, as Loki puts it, declaring war on God. So while the movie brings up the question of God’s innate Goodness, the character that does so the most becomes insane and perhaps the most Evil of all of the characters. So while this may be a valid question, we are dissuaded from asking it by the end of the film. 

Questioning the Power of God

          Apostle: noun; one who is commissioned and sent by a community to preach the gospel. The word Apostle is derived from the Greek word, apostolos, meaning, “one who is sent.” In the Bible, Jesus chose twelve disciples, referred to apostles after his ascension into heaven, to spread the gospel after his death and resurrection. In the modern sense, an apostle is one who is sent out to spread the gospel and create new communities of believers.  

            In The Apostle (1997), Sonny (Robert Duvall), a Pentecostal preacher from New Boston, Texas, was influenced from a young age to spread the beliefs and teachings of Jesus. His lively services were widely popular amongst the community, drawing in large crowds. However, the community’s perception of him is changed when he becomes frustrated with his wife’s affair and her attempts at turning “his” church against him. In an act of frustration, Sonny hits his wife’s lover across the face with a baseball bat, which places him in a coma, and later kills him. Sonny flees New Boston, and ends up in the small community of Bayou Boutte, Louisiana. Along the way, Sonny baptizes himself as “The Apostle” to God, and changes his name to E.F. In Louisiana, Sonny works as a mechanic while also preaching on the local radio station. With the help of the community’s retired minister, Blackwell, Sonny remodels an old rundown church and gains the support of the community. At the end of the film, Sonny’s wife finds out where he is living and calls the police. The last scene of the movie shows Sonny preaching to his fellow inmates as they are working on the side of a highway.

            One of the readings from this week, Evil and Omnipotence by J. L. Mackie, questions the existence and power of God. In Mackie’s essay, he raises the question: if God really is omnipotent and wholly good, then why does evil still exist? He states that because this question exists, no rational proof of God’s existence is possible. He later goes on to explain that in order to accept two parts of the equation (omnipotence, wholly good, lack of evil), we must reject one. Mackie presents three different solutions to this problem: we can deny God’s omnipotence, believe evil is an illusion, or we can define evil as the privation of good. Mackie also introduces what he calls fallacious solutions. Each of these “solutions” however, relates back to the original problem of having to reject one of the beliefs about God and the world in order to accept the other two. The first, “God cannot exist without evil” or “evil is necessary as a counterpart to good,” sets limits on God’s power, thus rejecting his omnipotence. The second, “Evil is necessary as a means to good,” suggests that good and evil are not counterparts, and again restricts God’s power. The third, “The universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil,” suggests that good what one experiences in the absence of evil but that evil must exist in order to recognize good in its absence. Lastly, “evil is due to human freewill,” also questions God’s omnipotence.

            Ideas similar to Mackie’s are raised both by Sonny in the film, and by the film itself. How can Sonny, who spends his life dedicated to God and his teachings, be subject to the “evil” of his wife’s infidelities? Or, how could a man with so much dedication to God and doing what is good, have enough evil within him to kill a man? In one scene from the movie, Sonny is asking God similar questions as to why he has been faced with such evil. However, despite what he has been forced to deal with, Sonny continues to preach the existence and good of God. Using Sonny as an example, can we agree with Mackie that evil and omnipotence can’t fit together? Or, is the evil that Sonny experiences not actually inherent evil, but rather just the absence of good? And lastly, is the absence of good still in fact evil? 

The Greater Good

The movie Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter…and Spring follows the life of a Buddhist apprentice in the critical stages of his life. The movie takes place on a floating monastery somewhere in Korea, and the stages of the apprentice’s life are portrayed in the five seasonal periods in the title. It begins in his childhood living with his master in the spring. The story advances by about 10-20 years at the transition between seasons and ends in the spring, the apprentice becoming the new master in his old age. There is very little dialogue and the movie does not explicitly discuss religion, however, one of the themes that I saw within the movie is one discussed by J.L. Mackie in Evil and Omnipotence. The main objective of this work is to address one of the key issues that arise in God’s identity, that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent yet there is still evil in the world. I think that this film can be used to address some of what Mackie talks about.

One of the arguments used to solve the contradiction is that the evil that we see is needed for good and that true evil does not actually exist. This basically states that the hardships and ill-fortune that humans experience exist for the sake of bringing out the greater good within humanity. This is a view that was also put forth by the Stoics for their god, Providence. To them the greater good was found after one overcame hardship and that one who endures such things are of better character than those that did not. The movie seems to bring attention to this point of view in the way that the apprentice grows and matures. A trend in the film is that by the end of each season (excluding the last one) the apprentice has undergone some sort of hardship which advances him into his next stage of life. I certainly think that this follows the argument that Mackie discusses. One of his major criticisms of this argument is that there must be certain orders of good and evil for this to be valid, and that regardless of how many goods there are there has to be an evil of the same order as a result, spiraling into infinity.

I just want to focus on the first and second orders because I think those are the most important. Essentially first order good (happiness) and evil (misery) oppose each other. Second order good (benevolence) and evil (cruelty) affect the first order. One of the things that failed to be addressed is the target that these goods and evils are directed at. What I mean is that the first order seems to be feelings associated with the self. The second order seems concerned with what one does to others, but second order evil and good I would think achieve the same goal. For example, there are those who are benevolent to another because it makes them happier and in turn less miserable. There are also those who are cruel to others because it makes them happier and less miserable. There isn’t anyone who would actively cause their own misery and so it seems that both second order evil and good perpetuate first order good within the self. The difference is that second order good presumably makes others happy while second order evil makes others miserable. Now the question to be asked is which of these are the greater good? In the movie the master makes the apprentice undergo hardships which could be seen as cruel For example he tied a stone to the child apprentice to punish him for doing the same to animals, and made the apprentice in adulthood carve characters until morning to calm his angry heart. What the master did was cruel, but it was for the sake of making the apprentice a better person. This is the same idea that evil exists to produce the greater good, for the apprentice would not have been able to become the new master without the hardships he overcame.

I suppose this argument would be doomed to collapse on itself because if loosely interpreted then it suggests that all actions and events are ultimately good in the end. Suicide would invalidate the argument because I do not believe anything good comes from it (unless one argues that it provides a hardship for others to overcome). Another possible issue is that maybe the greatest goods also produce the greatest evils, which is the general critique that Mackie gives. I do not think the argument that evil can produce a greater good is entirely false but I do believe there should be stricter conditions for good and evil if using this argument.

Doubt and Faith

Religious and spiritual issues can be difficult to discuss, especially within mixed company of those who may not adhere to pious dogma. And yet doubting or even proving the existence of a higher being, in some conversations, may have little to do with why, how or to what extent an individual necessitates religion. Often arguments are based not off of whether one can prove that God or any other higher beings exist, but how individuals think, feel, and act based off of the faith in the beings. It is from the experiences of living and acting in such a religious or faith-based way that an individual is able to articulate his or her motives for how he or she lives. The experience may be life-changing, such is the case in Life of Pi, or it can be a judgment based on years of previous experience and history of certain behavior, like in Doubt. 

The two films Doubt and Life of Pi are based upon experiences and situations in which personal judgments are not based on proof or evidence of what is known, but what is trusted or believed. Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Meryl Streep) suspects and confronts Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman)  about his seemingly unusual relationship with a black 12-year old student, Donald Miller (Joseph Foster). After he returns to class with alcohol on his breath, Beauvier questions Flynn and accuses him of exhibiting inappropriate behavior with Miller. Flynn is outraged and states that Street has no right for her accusations because she does admit that she has little evidence to disprove Flynn's story. Sister James (Amy Adams) is convinced of Flynn's story and tearfully pleads with Beauvier, asking her why she refuses to believe him. Beavier explains that she does not need evidence. Instead, she acts upon experience, doubt, faith, and a little lie that worked in the end. Pascal comments that is is this very lack of evidence and reason that justifies our beliefs and actions. Furthermore, "it is by lacking proofs that they are not lacking sense" (578). It is through her faith, experience and gut feeling that Beauvier is able to bring about justice in her school and for Miller.

In Life of Pi, Piscine's tragic story unfolds into a strengthening experience of unquestioning faith. Piscine studied and performed religious dogma from various religions growing up. But when shipwrecked and castaway, he found truth not through facts or proven knowledge, but through finding himself and connecting with Richard Parker and nature. Reflecting, Pi says that even though we can not see or prove God exists, we feel him and know that there is another power at work. It is from his experience of being on that boat that fortified his faith in the higher power. As Pascal says, "reason can determine nothing here" (578). This is too true. It was Pi's choice of living and connecting with Richard Parker that he was able to survive and restore his faith. Pi's faith was never based upon facts or something that he was able to prove in the end as a result of his journey. He reflects upon it as a transition that comes about with doubt, experience, and faith. He even comments that "doubt is useful for a while" because is tests what we want to know.

How else has doubt appeared as a useful tool in these movies or in others you have watched? Can it be considered a sort of "filter" or does it have even deeper purpose?

Dogma and Russell

Dogma is defined as, “a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.” Synonyms to dogma include tenet concerning faith and doctrine.  As you can probably guess, the movie I choose to watch this week was Dogma (1999). This movie has a loaded cast with (Matt Demon, Ben Affleck, Chris Rock, Selma Hayek, my personal favorite Alan Rickman, and many more). The plot of this film presents a different view on the Catholic Church as written and directed by Kevin Smith. To sum of the jist of the movie, an abortion clinic worker with a “special” lineage is basically called on to save the human race. The one who calls on her is the “voice of God” or God’s personal Assistant, Metetron (Alan Rickman). On the way for her to save the human race, two prophets assist her. Why you ask does she have to save the human race?? Well, she has to stop two angels who were cast out of heaven from erasing God’s doings by having their souls restored by entering a church celebration.

            You see, Cardinal Glick (George Carlin, who I will talk about more later) gives a presentation at church telling the congregation and the world that they are going to try and change the Catholic fading image. With these changes he proposes a Papal sanction, so anyone who enters the church on the day of the “rededication ceremony” will have all their sins forgiven and will be “good” in God’s eyes. The two fallen angels, Loki (Matt Damon) and Bartleby (Ben Affleck) think that this is the perfect time to restore their angel status and get them out of serving eternity in a place “worst than hell,” Wisconsin.

            Overall, the plot has a lot of twists and turns and represents the changes the Catholic Church is making and how they are comical in a way. In the reading for class on Tuesday, the one I want to focus on is “Why I am not Christian” by Bertrand Russell.

            Bertrand Russell’s discussion on why he is not a Christian contains several different reasons, but he concludes with the idea of “what we must do” regarding Christianity. He explains that our conception of God is unworthy of free men. He explains that the church should not call people sinners and the act of doing so is not worthy of self-respecting human beings. Finally, he concludes that we should stand up and make the best of the world, which needs, “knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men.” Russell urges us to not look back and not look forward, but trust that our intelligence will lead us to a successful future.  

            Using Russell’s approach to Christianity could be shown in the film Dogma because the film uses satire to make fun of the Catholic Church and it’s dogmatic teachings. The first few lines in the film are of Cardinal Glick claiming that the church is attempting to revamp its image so that people will change their opinion about the church.  

Here is part of  quote from that scene:

“Now we all know how the majority and the media in this country view the Catholic church. They think of us as a passe, archaic institution. People find the Bible obtuse... even hokey. Now in an effort to disprove all that the church has appointed this year as a time of renewal... both of faith and of style. For example, the crucifix. While it has been a time honored symbol of our faith, Holy Mother Church has decided to retire this highly recognizable, yet wholly depressing image of our Lord crucified. Christ didn't come to Earth to give us the willies... He came to help us out. He was a booster. And it is with that take on our Lord in mind that we've come up with a new, more inspiring sigil. So it is with great pleasure that I present you with the first of many revamps the "Catholicism WOW. " campaign will unveil over the next year. I give you... The Buddy Christ. Now that's not the sanctioned term we're using for the symbol, just something we've been kicking around the office, but look at it. Doesn't it... pop? Buddy Christ..”

            This quote shows an example of what Bertrand Russell urges us to do. He urges us to move forward and although it is comical, the Catholic Church in Dogma is trying to do that. Though Russell would rather us quite Christianity as a whole, the film shows what would happen if we were to change Catholicism. 

Hoop Dreams: a Life in Pursuit of Excellence

Hoop Dreams is one of my absolutely favorite films of all times. The first time I finished watching it, I just kind of stared at the screen for a while, taking it what I had just seen. The film tells the story of two boys from inner city Chicago who dream of making it to the NBA. First, of course, they have to make it through the ups and downs of high school. The film takes you through a roller coaster of emotions, showcasing the hardships, both on and off the court, that the boys have to face--a 90 minute commute to school, drug addiction, and poverty, just to name a few. Like I said, after I finished watching the movie, I thought about what I had seen: two boys working their asses off to play basketball and, hopefully, find success.

Immediately after this short period of reflection, I googled what had become of William Gates and Arthur Agee. Neither made it into the NBA, but both of their Wikipedia pages gave good hope that both men were doing well in life. Gates graduated from Marquette University and became a real-estate agent and senior pastor at a church. Agee received a basketball scholarship and graduated from Arkansas State University. He then made a clothing line and started the Arthur Agee foundation (named after his late father) which encourages kids to see their parents, and not sports athletes, as their heroes.

Heather L. Reid questions what the point of athletics is and what winning actually is. While I found that all to be interesting, she mentioned something that I found to be a lot more though provoking.

"The definition of winning in sport is clear and quantitatively measurable — unlike "winning" in other areas of life, such as love or happiness, where success is not so easily measured." 

The lives of both Arthur and William were tumultuous at more than one point. Despite the fact that Arthur worked hard to remain at St. Joseph's, his mother could not pay for tuition and he had to change schools. Despite the fact that William was having a great season and pushing himself hard, he injured his knee, severely affecting his game play. It is quite evident that life can be incredibly unfair sometimes. Like Reid said, you can't measure your successes and failures in life. It is impossible to say that you've either lost or won. Despite how hard you "practice" or prepare yourself in life, something bad can happen and ruin everything. Interestingly enough, the motto of Arthur's clothing line is "Control Your Destiny". Of course, it is possible to work hard and prepare as best as you can for whatever life may bring, but this is only to a certain extent. 

Sports can be seen as a controlled, quantifiable version of life. In her essay, Reid uses the Aristotelian concept of arete to defend the importance of sports. While many people might believe the "point" of sports is to win, Reid believes that engagement in athletics adds to one's virtue. By constantly working to improve oneself in the sports arena through virtues such as habit, courage, and strength, an individual is promoting his or her overall excellence. These virtues are not just applicable on the court, of course, but are completely applicable to every day life. This is kind of obvious, of course. The difference between life and sports is that sports has a defined set of rules and a clear measure for winning and losing. 

Reid makes it clear why everyone loves a winner: 

"victory requires a knowledge of oneself that is rare and difficult to achieve as well as the discipline to maximize individual potential without stopping short of or overstepping one's limits. The recognition of ones' limitations must be tempered by a realistic yet ambitious drive toward maximum performance, this is a balancing act central to all forms of human excellence that can be learned through sport."

Clearly, the skills that one learns as an athlete can and should add to his or her overall virtue, or being. Arthur and William, while at many points in their life dealt with struggle and hardship, clearly found success within themselves. Just because they didn't make it to the NBA or win every game they played in does not mean that they are not winners. The sheer fact that they are progressing, moving forward in life, and generally being "virtuous" individuals shows that they are truly winners--both on and off the court.