Winning

[2bev]

I'm the manager of my 9 year old daughters soccer team. The coach just handed out to the parents a statement of his coaching philosophy. The main point, which shapes all his thoughts is that for this team the goal should be having fun and developing skills. Reading it crystalized some thoughts I've had for a while on sports and the concept of "

Comments

[wynand]

I actually think winning is better when it's not something taught. Wanting to win or to be competitive are subversive acts in today's world, and we need more healthy subversive acts. If it's made acceptable to assert your individual power over something and to care about that, then to what lengths does one have to go to become independent?

[2bev]

I'm not sure what you mean by "winning is better when it's not something taught". Did you mean it feels better? Is better in some other way?

By your second sentence, did you mean that wanting to win and be competitive are subversive in that the current culture disdains them as noble motives?

In my opinion, the only thing we can "assert" our individual power over is ourselves, and caring about that is a prime virtue. The act of doing so is the act of becoming independent (which is what you may have meant). What does it matter to what lengths we go to? And how does going past some acceptable "length" correlate with what I said, which is that winning properly is something that must be taught?

[wynand]

The first sentence is meant to be explained by the other two. Winning is better when it's not taught in the same way that it's better not to read the ending of a book before you read the beginning: winning is so inherently good that it's a joy to discover it on one's own. I was required to read Moby Dick in school because it was meant to be good for me and I despised it. Now I'm reading it on my own and I love it. Sometimes knowing that a value is culturally or institutionally approved (and parenthood is an institution) robs it of the real value it has

[2bev]

Hmm.

I don't seem to be getting my message across. You said:
"winning is so inherently good that it's a joy to discover it on one's own. "

There is no way to "discover" it except by experiencing it, which is necessarily "on one's own." (as all experiences are).

I didn't mean to imply that winning must be taught or it won't be learned. Winning properly should be taught as an integral part of teaching values as such.

What should be taught (sorry to repeat myself) is that winning is not an end that is divorced from the means by which you achieve it. I think that this connection should be taught, and that it is not today. Winning is either disdained because it supposedly requires unethical means (false) or embraced as an end in itself, without reference to the means by which it is achieved. It's analagous to one of Rand's criticism of altruism (sacrifce for others or others sacrificed for you as the only alternative offered

[flooffy]

what is riley's soccer team called?

[2bev]

The Twisters. The Avalanche are our rivals.

[orcofdoom]

I agree somewhat with Wynand, winning has it's value and doesn't need to be taught. It's the result of work, and is great because of what it represents. It should not be taught as the true value in of itself. When it is taught to be the one true value, subversive acts are likely to be used, or acts which bend the rules a bit. Honor is the key

[2bev]

"I agree somewhat with Wynand, winning has it's value and doesn't need to be taught.

It's not the value that I think needs to be taught. It's the ethics of winning that needs to be taught.(see my reply to Wynand).