Maybe by deeming a piece of writing as a spoof academic essay we can remain safely out of touch with what it actually, however clumsily, attempts to address; Pain? Being? Topography? Landscape? Endurance? Flow? Any thoughts?
Are you Ulfson Arvidsson? In which case I should make clear that my remark was not intended to be serious. My thought process went like this:
* I don't understand very much of this. For example, "Carel (2006:88) asserts that 'The Future is the Being projected by the For-itself, because the For-itself is perpetually apprehending itself as unachieved in relation to it.'" What does that mean?
* Perhaps it's just philosophical jargon. Sounds a bit like Sartrean existentialism. Maybe academic philosophers would understand what it's all about?
* But then what's this piece doing in
Arrivée? I mean, long-distance cyclists are wonderful people and all that, but I don't think many of us have the necessary background in philosophy to appreciate this.
* Is it trying to be an introduction to philosophy for audaxers? It's pitched at much too high a level for that. Maybe it's an introduction to audaxing for philosophers? But then it's wasted here: it needs to be in a philosophy journal.
* If it were a spoof, then all would make sense!
So, yes, I am probably out of touch on all these subjects, but I was not enlightened by your article. Sorry! It went right over my head.
