If we were to go down the rabbit hole of competition, one of the first examples that come to my mind is a debate. A debate is an intellectual chess match, where you have one side presents their arguments, and the other side presents theirs, then, both try to find flaws in the other’s argument to make counter-arguments and it goes on and on, back and forth until one side wins, and the other loses, or there’s no clear-conclusive-decisive winner. Debating can be rather useful because you have to think things through. In the same way, Socrates would annoy people in Athens to think critically and question things, at the same time he was also teaching them a method for finding the truth. This was done through dialogue (dialectic) and he was known for dissecting their claims and beliefs, going in circles with people. It was a necessary back-and-forth exchange, for the two in the conversation to reach a point of truth or a conclusion. The Socratic method is used to flesh out what exactly you mean or believe in and it lets you flesh out your ideas more clearly. Not only that, it allows others to attack it to see if the argument can defend itself and stand firm. In regards to chess, I say that with no real knowledge of how to play chess, nor any prior experience because I have never played chess myself. So there’s reason to believe that I am the wrong person to use this analogy, hence making my claim presumably invalid. On the contrary, let’s imagine that my analogy perfectly describes how a debate can unfold, therefore making this analogy legitimate and accurate concerning chess and debates.
When observing two professional chess players playing chess, there’s an intense focus in their eyes with the close attention of scanning the playing field. It’s fascinating how they are so inclined to face each other off in this boxed-in society of a board game, with tunnel vision and laser in, blocking out all distractions that are going on around them. One can only imagine what going on in their minds. What is going on in their minds? In other words, what are they thinking, never mind how they feel if they feel anything at all when playing chess? Perhaps, emotions cloud their judgments, and it gets in the way of them actually winning. Are they imagining that they are really at war with one another? That these pieces are real and living, with the pawns, knights, rooks, bishops, kings, and queens. Finally, a foreseer, an omnipotent punishable/merciful God which is the player itself, as they move these pieces around on the board out of the pieces’ own free will and they face-off to destroy the other pieces.
You see, in chess, the point is to compete against each other for a clear decisive winner, or as Bobby Fischer would put it, “Chess is a war over the board”. He also stated, “The object is to crush the opponent’s mind.” and said, “I like the moment when I break a man’s ego.” Therefore, from Fischer’s quotes, we can conclude there should be a winner, and some may argue who takes the game seriously, that there must be a winner! You either win or you lose, that’s the object of the game, or on rare occasions, the game becomes a deadlock with no winner at all. If it becomes a tie, then where is the satisfaction in that? Maybe there is validity to of a tie and you play again, but that brings up a contradiction in that this punishable/merciful chess player is actually playing chess because of their feelings towards it. Now, there is reason to believe that the chess player itself has an emotional attachment and satisfaction towards chess because it is stimulating. From a neurological level, it is firing neurons in the brain releasing serotonin chemicals and making them feel happy when they play chess if they love playing it. But when a player is locked in, playing with someone else, all those feelings go out the window when winning is the objective, or is it when happiness is also pursued and becomes the objective behind the other objective?
It is quite ironic that happiness can be viewed as the objective, for one to reach this blissful state because the act of playing itself is needed. Happiness may be achieved because you may be playing this game for the love you get from it, but in the act of playing it, the opposite may occur if you lose, and are you happy when you are losing, or if you lose? Most likely not. In the other outcome, the byproduct of winning is the destruction of the other (the loser) to satisfy this selfish desire. In the end, there may be mutual respect, and you go ahead with the daily rituals of showing your respect to your opponent by shaking hands and so forth, all to show a great deal of sportsmanship.
Before you decide that you want to crush your opponent and see their ego deteriorate as Fischer gets a kick out of, there’s a certain way you should go about it, and it’s not humbling. If you go in a chess match with the mindset that you will lose, or want to lose, that would defeat the whole purpose of playing the game. You might as well not participate at all if you intend to lose, right? Someone may point out that the only way to get better is to lose to someone better than you. That’s to say, that any amateur will end up losing to a professional chess player. Or, you can end up playing someone who is an amateur, meaning at the same level as you, you could remain mediocre. Perhaps, there are ways to get better at it within this experiment of amateur vs amateur, in which competition is seen as a collaborative effort to get better. We can see it from a vantage point, as of another experiment of amateur vs professional, as a collaborative effort; in other words, training and practice to build up the amateur to the level of a professional, as well as to sharpen the professional to remain in that position. That could mean that this selfish desire can also be seen as an unselfish one to improve the other, whether one intended to do so or not. Competition and collaboration may be mutually accepted as interchangeably linked to one another.
Confidence is important in chess as well as in any other competition because the person who lacks confidence in him/herself will more likely be stagnant and less likely to make the right moves, as they are overly concerned with the doubts inside their heads. There is a difference between confidence and arrogance. There are similarities between a confident person from an arrogant or egocentric person. But it is likely that some confident people are arrogant and can be viewed as obnoxious or intolerable to be around. A confident person is tolerable to be around and does not have to constantly show off to others that they are better than such and such and great. That is to say, a confident individual does not have their ego inflated, but rather controlled and deflated because they’ve humbled themselves. Someone who has obtained mastery in an art form, a game, or any sport, will have the utmost confidence in themselves and they will have tremendous belief, courage, and confidence that they can defeat anyone.
There’s nothing wrong with having belief in yourself, but that can only be established when you are battle-tested and you are aware of how your skills measure up against others. Bobby Fischer realized this when he said, “Psychologically, you have to have confidence in yourself and this confidence should be based on fact.” All this to say, you have to build up confidence, not just any confidence but real confidence that can back it up with your skills. True confidence can only be developed from mastery and from winning in a specific game like chess. Confidence comes with courage and that’s a remedy to remove one’s doubt. You should aim to build confidence within yourself to become a master of a craft and you shall be winning in your careers, thus, you will be winning at life.
Competition is an interesting concept, and maybe it is a character trait instilled in people from birth. It may be that competition is a necessary but not a sufficient reason for survival. There could be a biological survival reason for people having this particular trait, therefore, making it a necessary trait for one to have it because it is for one’s survival when one is born into a suffer-able, intolerable, dangerous, hostile, environment that can end up destroying you if you don’t sharpen your mind as well as one’s physical body to keep your guard up and be ready for the onslaughts ahead. The onslaughts of the merciless nature of the world of earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, an asteroid, or a predator lurking in the bushes. It is nature with its’ infinite amount of natural disasters that can inflict pain on our fragile bodies even as small as a virus can affect us. From this perspective, we must continuously learn to adapt to nature as we have done so far. Now, even nature can be seen as merciful and punishable as God and a person. How oxymoronic nature can seem. It’s nature with its beauty, that gives birth, nourishes, protects, and gives meaning to life. Or do we project meaning to nature? I’d like to see an intense intellectual debate with the greatest minds sprinkled in with ordinary people on what is nature. What is the nature of reality and what is natural? Perhaps, simple people have a better grasp of the nature of reality than the likes of some intellectuals and philosophers who tend to overthink it. That’s to say, there’s wisdom, power, and clarity in simplicity. There’s power but it is mostly confusing in complexity. Get out of your own way, as an Eastern philosopher would say.
What is the nature of competition? You see, when you are competing against yourself, or another person, what is it that you are really trying to seek? Is one trying to seek validation? In other words, how do you measure up against the other? Does one find satisfaction in competing and must fulfill an empty void? Is there reason to believe that competition sharpens one’s skills and therefore, one must test oneself with another person? Do all people have this competitive nature? In other words, is it natural to compete? And is it a good or a bad thing to have it? Now, there may be an infinite amount of reasons why to believe that having a competitive spirit is either good, bad, or indifferent. Some people may feel that there is no need for competition and not everyone feels this need to compete. Nevertheless, it begs the question, of whether finding the nature of competition to be a complete waste of time or something worth pursuing and understanding. So what is the right question to ask when it comes to competition?
Originally published at http://thephilosopherinme.wordpress.com on November 24, 2020.
Social Scholarly 