Why does everything have to be so competitive?

“Why does everything have to be so competitive”,
asked a young boy of 14 years to his golf instructor?

The instructor provided an answer that left himself (Instructor)unsettled within his own heart-mind. Introspectively he perceived at the core level of his soul that there was more to the answer than he had provided.



This is a really beautiful question that illumines the intellect of the boy asking the question as well as the instructor seeking to provide an answer . Whether it was innocently asked or whether it seeks answers deeper than surface level, it should be regarded as serious inquiry. The boy should first be congratulated for asking it; he seeks understanding of a far more broad issue about human behavior and the social interactions between them as they exist. We are left with sadness and gladness.


Civilization is greatly influenced by competitions whether between individuals or in social organizations. I’d like to explore the collective abstract nature of the human being as it is busy being human; and how that nature is influenced as it inter-relates with other human beings within the social organization, causing new synthesis and new questions within himself. One of those questions is competitiveness to excel and rise within the stratification of the social organization.

Life itself is all about the raising of questions and not simply about the answers found. No satisfactory answer will end the above question. Every answer will come with yet another question attached to it.

So why then do we need competition as a purpose? Is there indeed a contest taking place when we compete or do we perceive that a contest is taking place, and therein create competition falsely when outside the realm of an actual contest? Are contests necessary? Do they naturally occur when two or more human beings relate to each other, or do they occur within one human being as he seeks to exist? Is it competitiveness when one human seeks food and is forced to compete with non-humans for the food? “This serious question requires serious and deep thought”, I spoke as I laughed at myself seeking answers.

The cognitive contemplation of our own perception of this question seems to be a good starting place. The word contemplation comes from the Latin root templum (from Greek temnein: to cut or divide), and means to separate something from its environment, and to enclose it in a sector. Contemplation is the Latin translation of Greek 'theory' (theoria). The word perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information. It is a representation of what is perceived. It is a basic component in the formation of a concept.

What is the nature of competition in a contest or perceived contest?

It can be supposed in the direct sense of the initial question, that the arena for the competition will become a lead for us to consider. Confined to the bound parameters of the stated purpose for a contest, should lead us to the obvious answer of who is best at a particular moment in time. Yet we know future competitions are forth-coming. It seems merely a precursor; a derivative of the earliest nature of mankind’s instinct to survive. Who is fittest to live, morphed now as who is fittest to win; a pathology (disease) or phobia (disorder) that has become normalcy in our society today?

In abstraction, there can only be disparate competition when there is but one individual competing with another classification. There then is no need of comparison; only the knowledge of the accomplishment. Competitiveness appears to gain aberrant psyche-sociological relevance within the realm of like beings relating to each other (s) for dominance, subjugation, or reward in knowing.

Sociology is defined here as the study of society, human social interaction, and the rules and processes that bind and separate people not only as individuals, but as members of associations, groups, and institutions.

The Latin root for the verb "to compete" is "competere", which means "to seek together" or "to strive together" However, even the general definition stated above is not universally accepted.

Social theorists, most notably Alfie Kohn and cooperativists in general, argue that the traditional definition of competition is too broad and vague. Competition which originates internally and is biologically motivated can and should be defined as either amoral competition or simply the survival instinct, i.e. behavior which is neither good nor bad, but exists to further the survival of an individual or species (for instance hunting), or behavior which is coerced (for instance self-defense). Social Darwinists, however, state that competition is not only moral, but necessary for the survival of the species.

It would seem that to get to the root of competitive nature, one would need to explore the nature of the true self within an individual (inside influenced) and the nature of the egocentric self of an individual (outside influenced); I am what I have; I am what I do; I am what others think of me. This will edge on the age-old existential question of why do I as an individual exist? Can I exist without competing with another to exist?

The contest or competition between individuals is a representation of who is best fit to lead as stratified within the parameters of the contest. It nurtures the ego of the winner and extracts from the ego of the loser (s) who is left with the desire to become a winner and therein is nurtured for future competitiveness in order that others shall think well of him as winner and he then will deserve to think well of himself through proof of competition.

The competition is neither good nor bad. It is a perception of reality. It pushes the envelope of possibility to excel beyond the current level of achievement. It provides drive or motivation that is realized and celebrated when comparing non-disparate (similar or like) things to another. For instance: a race contest between a human and a cheetah could provide celebration only within one class of the participants and would be a non-valid contest, though the winner would certainly be the cheetah.

Now then, we are left with the question of how one looks at himself in existence. Humans cannot exist alone without social interaction with something else. Now slowly ruminate on that for a good while.

Does he (human) really exist except in relation to something else, animate or inanimate? How does he know the truth, excepting in relation to something else? Can one state truth alone without relating to something else? What would be the need of stating truth if he were alone without perception of any one or anything else?

In competition between humans, do humans compete for what is true and therein for the reward of settling it, which is having others have adoration for he who revealed and attained the truth?

I believe an answer to the initial question asked is “that the root nature of competition is a quest for what is true which is a changing thing. But the reward for finding what is true (adulation) is the desire to be loved, where truth is also found. It is a quest for Love.” Its’ absolute answer can only be found when we find ABSOLUTE TRUTH. There we will find ABSOLUTELOVE; Finding also how to love ourselves.

The type of love that is received (adoration and adulation) from a contest will not provide a satisfactory answer to the longing for truth and love, because it does not reach the level of ABSOLUTE TRUTH or HIGHEST TRUTH. AGAPELOVE or GODLYLOVE is LOVE without the need of reciprocity because there is nothing one can do to deserve it. ITISGIVENONLYBYTHECREATOR.

You can stop here if you wish. I believe I’ve supported my answer to the question, which ends with GOD. Or you can journey on with me to a preferred stopping point that deals with the different natures of love.. We are not seeking ending but rather, understanding. Remember, life is about the questions raised; not the answers found; because each answer comes with yet another question..

So what kind of truth/love would need comparison or a contest in order to gain it?

I realize I’m taking the original question much farther than the initial inquiry. That’s the way these types of questions are. So let’s continue to explore the socio-philosophic approach to the question anyway and see where we are led. I’m having fun right now and we can laugh together about the journey later, ok? Let’s see if we can gain some benefit for the additional inquiry – cui bono (who benefits)?

Additional research contextualized for the support the answer just given:

Philosophy ( philo is Greek for love, sophy or sophic relates to the truth or learning) means love of truth or learning. I suppose the philosophic approach is a methodology design to seek the truth of a matter. Methodologies vary.

Philosophy is defined as:
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.
From Greek (This word philosophy originated in Greece )

To the ancient Greeks we owe our love of wisdom. Or at least the word philosophy, which is the same thing, phil meaning "love" and sophy meaning "wisdom." Combined, the two elements mean both a love of wisdom and a desire for it. In English, philosophy first appears in writing as early as 1340, when it is explained for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the word as "love of wysdome."

Wisdom is a word native to English, but we had no term for the love of learning or the desire to gain wisdom. Like the rest of the Western world, we learned that from the Greeks.

Greek is one of the great contributors to English, and philosophy a great example of the Greek contribution. Like many other Greek words, it came to us not directly from the Greek but first through Latin and then through French, the two languages that have contributed even more than Greek to the English we know today.

The two parts of philosophy recombine themselves in numerous other words. Phil- is found, for example, in philanthropy, the love of humankind; philharmonic, loving music; philodendron, a plant that loves to hang around trees (dendron being tree); and Philadelphia, or the love of brother or sister. We are so comfortable with Greek that we can use it to make stunt words such as philopatrodomania, or the mania that comes from loving one's homeland, that is, homesickness. Phil with an added e also appears at the end of dozens of words from Greek like bibliophile, a lover of books; ailurophile, a lover of cats; oenophile, a lover of wine; Anglophile, a lover of things English, and Francophile, a lover of things French; and pedophile, one with a (perverted) love of children.

The soph part of philosophy also finds itself in English words, notably sophisticated, full of a certain kind of wisdom; and sophomore, combining the words for "wise" and "foolish" to represent the state of mind of a second-year college student.

It is thanks to the Greeks that we have schools and scholars in the first place; both of those English words are from the Greek. Even today, scholarly fields of study are named in Greek, using the suffix logy from logos meaning "word" or "discourse." The three hundred logys in present-day English include archaeology, discourse about old things; biology, discourse about life; oology, discourse about eggs; neurology, discourse about the nervous system; geology, discourse about the earth; psychology, discourse about the mind; theology, discourse about God; eschatology, discourse about the last days of the world; graphology, discourse about writing; cosmetology, discourse about cosmetics; terminology, discourse about terms; and criminology, demonology, ufology, and sexology, which need no introduction. And then, we have philology, the love of words, of discourse, of learning, the name formerly given to scholarship in language and literature.

English has many other words of Greek origin as well, everything from catalog (1460) to zeal (1382). All told, about 5 percent of the general English vocabulary comes from Greek. Even today, science and technology use elements of Greek and Latin to construct new English words. One hybrid example, is television, which uses tele (meaning "distant") from Greek and vision from Latin.

Like English, Greek is an Indo-European language. It is the sole member of the Hellenic branch. Modern Greek is spoken by about eleven million inhabitants of modern Greece. But it is the classical language, the ancestor of modern Greek, that is the basis for our philosophical borrowings.

Philia: [Greek, from philos, beloved, loving.] Philo means love or liking. In his Rhetoric, Aristotle defines Philo as "wanting for someone what one thinks good, for his sake and not for one's own, and being inclined, so far as one can, to do such things for him" (1380b36–1381a2)

Types of philia

Aristotle divides friendships into three types, based on the motive for forming them: friendships of utility, friendships of pleasure and friendships of the good.
Friendships of utility are relationships formed without regard to the other person at all. Buying merchandise, for example, may require meeting another person but usually needs only a very shallow relationship between the buyer and seller. In modern English, people in such a relationship would not even be called friends, but acquaintances (if they even remembered each other afterwards). The only reason these people are communicating is in order to buy or sell things, which is not a bad thing, but as soon as that motivation is gone, so goes the relationship between the two people unless another motivation is found. Complaints and quarrels generally only arise in this type of friendship.

At the next level, friendships of pleasure are based on pure delight in the company of other people. People who drink together or share a hobby may have such friendships. However, these friends may also part--in this case if they no longer enjoy the shared activity, or can no longer participate in it together.

Friendships of the good are ones where both friends enjoy each other's characters. As long as both friends keep similar characters, the relationship will endure since the motive behind it is care for the friend. This is the highest level of phila, and in modern English might be called true friendship.

"now it is possible for bad people as well [as good] to be friends to each other for pleasure or utility, for decent people to be friends to base people, and for someone with neither character to be a friend to someone with any character. Clearly, however, only good people can be friends to each other because of the other person himself; for bad people find no enjoyment in one another if they get no benefit." (1157a18–21)

Not all bonds of philia involves reciprocity Aristotle notes. Some examples of these might include love of father to son, elder to younger or ruler to subject. Generally though, the bonds of philia are symmetrical.[4]
Self-sufficiency and philia

Aristotle recognizes that there is an apparent conflict between what he says about philia and what he says elsewhere (and what is widely held at the time) about the self-sufficient nature of the fulfilled life:
"it is said that the blessedly happy and self-sufficient people have no need of friends. For they already have [all] the goods, and hence, being self-sufficient, need nothing added." (1169a4–6)

He offers various answers. The first is based on the inherent goodness of acting for and being concerned for others ("the excellent person labours for his friends and for his native country, and will die for them if he must" [1169a19–20]); thus, being a wholly virtuous and fulfilled person necessarily involves having others for whom one is concerned — without them, one's life is incomplete:

"the solitary person's life is hard, since it is not easy for him to be continuously active all by himself; but in relation to others and in their company it is easier." (1170a6–8)

Aristotle's second answer is: "good people's life together allows the cultivation of virtue" (1170a12). Finally, he argues that one's friend is "another oneself", and so the pleasure that the virtuous person gets from his own life is also found in the life of another virtuous person.
"Anyone who is to be happy, then, must have excellent friends" (1170b19).

Altruism and egoism
For Aristotle, in order to feel the highest form of philia for another, one must feel it for oneself; the object of philia is, after all, "another oneself". This alone does not commit Aristotle to egoism, of course. Not only is self-love not incompatible with love of others, but Aristotle is careful to distinguish the sort of self-love that is condemned (ascribed to "those who award the biggest share in money, honours, and bodily pleasures to themselves. For these are the goods desired and eagerly pursued by the many on the assumption that they are best" [1168b17–19]) from that which should be admired (ascribed to one who "is always eager above all to perform just or temperate actions or any other actions in accord with the virtues, and in general always gains for himself what is fine [noble, good]" [1168b25–27]).

In fact:
"the good person must be a self-lover, since he will both help himself and benefit others by performing fine actions. But the vicious person must not love himself, since he will harm both himself and his neighbours by following his base feelings." (1169a12–15)

Aristotle also holds, though, that, as Hughes puts it: "[t]he only ultimately justifiable reason for doing anything is that acting in that way will contribute to a fulfilled life."[5] Thus acts of philia might seem to be essentially egoistic, performed apparently to help others, but in fact intended to increase the agent's happiness. This, however, confuses the nature of the action with its motivation; the good person doesn't perform an action to help a friend because it will give her fulfillment; she performs it in order to help the friend, and in performing it makes both her friend and herself happy. The action is thus good both in itself and for the effect it has on the agent's happiness.[6]

igman’091909
- Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. I do hope my pain to look at this issue will provide some gain to us all. Cui bono?

This is my stopping point, leaving us with much to continue thinking about. All of this could be completely eroneous or as the uninitiated will likely say, bul%$*!

Notes
1. ^ And also sometimes as "love".
2. ^ Hughes, p.168n.
3. ^ Cooper, p.302
4. ^ Happiness: Personhood, Community, Purpose By Pedro Alexis Tabensky, Published by Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2003, ISBN 0754607348, 9780754607342, page 205
5. ^ Hughes, pp 173–174.
6. ^ See Hughes, pp 175–176. For an alternative view, see Kraut, chapter 2.
Sources and further reading
• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, dual text, with translation by H. Rackham (Harvard University Press, 1934) ISBN 0-674-99081-1
• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics trans. Terence Irwin (2nd edition; Hackett, 1999) ISBN 0-87220-464-2
• John M. Cooper, "Friendship and the Good" (The Philosophical Review 86, 1977; pp 290–315
• John M. Cooper, "Aristotle on the Forms of Friendship" (The Review of Metaphysics 30, 1976–1977, pp 619–648
References in the article are to a reprint of the preceding two papers, as "Aristotle on Friendship", in Amélie Oksenberg Rorty [ed.], Essays on Aristotle's Ethics (University of California Press, 1980) ISBN 0-520-04041-4
• Gerard J. Hughes, Aristotle on Ethics (Routledge, 2001) ISBN 0-415-22187-0
• Richard Kraut, Aristotle on the Human Good (Princeton University Press, 1989) ISBN 0-691-02071-X
• Alexander Moseley, "Philosophy of Love", The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy