Thread: How else do we win.........

........if not by sharing....... ........?

win what exactly?

Well, its meant to be a philosophical statement, really. Basically, if someone wins something, and they don't share it, they don't share the victory, the win, it eventually becomes a type of personal gain that means nothing to anyone else. I think my point is, philosophically, the idea itself of "winning" is a shared thing. Of course winning could be described as being benefitted by chance, but even then that's a hollow victory which could be better promoted by sharing, right?

I don't know; when did the first concept, the first idea, of "winning" come into being, what context and why? Any ideas?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

I don't know; when did the first concept, the first idea, of "winning" come into being, what context and why? Any ideas?

How about competing for a mate, for pack leader, or for sunlight? There's competition taking place just about everywhere life touches down. There are winners and losers, some proliferate & many go extinct. When two mountain goats butt heads it's all about winning. Perhaps the concept of winning isn't human in origin as you may think. Is winning beneficial to species' survival? How does evolution & winning intertwine?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

I don't know; when did the first concept, the first idea, of "winning" come into being, what context and why? Any ideas?

How about competing for a mate, for pack leader, or for sunlight? There's competition taking place just about everywhere life touches down. There are winners and losers, some proliferate & many go extinct. When two mountain goats butt heads it's all about winning. Perhaps the concept of winning isn't human in origin as you may think. Is winning beneficial to species' survival? How does evolution & winning intertwine?

That's exactly my point. Is sharing a survival-based philosophy, in the end? Or are we after solo-winners?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

That's exactly my point. Is sharing a survival-based philosophy, in the end? Or are we after solo-winners?

Only one winner means many losers share defeat. In fact I'd wager that there are more losers sharing defeat than sharing a winner's victory. The prize is the winners, not shared amongst losers. However the losers may benefit.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

That's exactly my point. Is sharing a survival-based philosophy, in the end? Or are we after solo-winners?

Only one winner means many losers share defeat. In fact I'd wager that there are more losers sharing defeat than sharing a winner's victory. The prize is the winners, not shared amongst losers. However the losers may benefit.

Well, this is the thing, to win in the human game, it is a game of numbers, and thus the victory needs to be shared amongst those who are greater in number than the defeated. That's like the US political system.

(sorry about the second post)

I'm not saying politics is the only way to have a win though. As I was saying, the winner, the President, is elected provided he or she shares the victory with the majority vote.
As for a Monarchy though, it would seem they have gained the trust of the people, the majority, via a faith someone won for them. But the underlying theme seems to be a victory shared by a majority.

I beg to differ. Winning is what we strive for. We do not share. If I win, I may give you a lesser share of my winnings to make you an ally in my next quest but I dont consider you a winner. You're now an "employee" You will gain stature in my estimation by helping ME win but as soon as you decide to compete for the win yourself, you're no longer worth anything to me.

This goes with women, money, food etc.