.
Winning and losing are illusions people create to give themselves simple expositions and directions for existing on Earth. Look, it's even in the definition:
ex·po·si·tion
ˌekspəˈziSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: exposition; plural noun: expositions
1.
• a comprehensive description and explanation of an idea or theory.
"the exposition and defense of his ethics"
synonyms: explanation, description, elucidation, explication, interpretation; More
MUSIC
• the part of a movement, especially in sonata form, in which the principal themes are first presented.
• the part of a play or work of fiction in which the background to the main conflict is introduced.
Depends of the definition of winner and loser, it varies depending of the different points of view and diverse societies in this world. A loser may be a winner in another setting.
Thank you for your reply Oscar! :)
It is extremely complicated and contingent. But people like to have the illusion the difference between winners and losers is moral rectitude.That belief doesn't stand up to even the most cursory analysis.
Apologies lovely but I don't understand this answer at all. I'm sure it's my fault, not yours. Here's why I find it difficult to accept. Those athletes who won Olympic gold medals are winners. It was no illusion. They competed and were the best at that moment. Effort and excellence are no illusion. Rewarding them is not an illusory enterprise or exercise. So all of the exposition in which you engaged above about exposition seems theoretical to me and does not exist in the real world. The importance we attach to winning and losing may be illusory. It is always temporary. Although if you are a fan of a team that wins the most games that is real. Trophies are awarded to teams for winners in professional basketball and baseball and football and hockey teams. Authors of best-sellers are rewarded for excellence by those who purchase the books and read them and tell others by word-of-mouth that it is worth their time. The Pulitzer Prize is awarded for excellence and is no illusion. Of course these things are subjective but real nonetheless. Great acting/dancing/singing is rewarded with an Oscar or an Emmy or a Tony for performances that are notable and those who vote are their peers so they KNOW what outstanding and excellent is. None of it is illusion. Albums win gold records or platinum records for the volume of albums/records sold and the popular ones are at the top of all lists. Children win Spelling Bees. That is no illusion. There are winners and losers in all phases of life.
So that is why your reply makes no sense to me. I'm not saying it makes no sense. I'm just saying it makes no sense to me. Thank you for your reply! :)
I don't think so. For example the athletes who won Gold Medals at the Olympic Games are winners. I don't know what moral rectitude has to do with it. Witness the sad situation with Ryan Lochte (sp?)! He got the gold and has disgraced himself and his country. Mahalo for your reply OS and Happy Friday! :)
Well, setting aside the question of what exactly defines a "winner" for the moment and accepting the idea that being bestowed an Olympic Gold Medal consitutes "winning", Ryan Lochte was extremely fortunate to be born with exceptional genetics making him capable of competing with other Olympic swimmers and in a family/society which is wealthy enough it can afford to let extremely capable young men spend 6+ hours a day, 300+ days per year swimming back and forth in very expensive artificial swimming facilities for our collective entertainment.
People without exceptional genetics and subsistence workers in non-affluent societies don't get such opportunities.
Oui. C'est ca mon ami. Merci mille fois OS! :)
