The separation of the concept of game derived from etymology can’t be used as the foundation for defin-ing the concept of athletics, while both play and game are not provided with the priority to define the concept of athletics. In the mean time, the complexity, variability and randomness of game meanings are proven again in the process of distinguishing the concept of “game”, hence game is not the most appropriate generic concept of athlet-ics. Distinguishing the concept of game within this and that, and deconstructing the game itself, failed to enable ath-letics to be constructed in terms of concept; while screening beyond the concept of game is really the rational way to resolve the ambiguity of the concept of athletics, and skill is provided with more priority in the definition of athlet-ics. Differences between Chinese and western context make the concept of game ambiguous, obscure and multivo-cal, the theory of the essence of athletics being not game, and the theory of the essence of athletics being skill, are conclusions drawn from the logical definition of athletics.%词源学中得出游戏概念的分离，并不能作为定义竞技概念的基础，玩耍和游戏都不具备定义竞技概念的优先性。同时，游戏意义的复杂性、多变性和随意性，在对“游戏”概念区分过程中，被再次得到证明，游戏不是竞技最合适的属概念。游戏概念“此与彼”之内的分辨，解构游戏本身却没能使竞技获得概念上的建构；而游戏概念之外的甄选，才是解决竞技概念不清的理性道路，技艺在竞技定义中更具优先性。中西语境的差异，使得游戏概念模糊、晦涩且多义，竞技本质非游戏论、竞技本质技艺论，是竞技在逻辑定义中得出的结论。
展开▼
