We, in some respects, still seem to live in a culture that encourages winners and breeds competition. Or maybe that’s just an illusion, a left over from our past… either way though, the ideas remain in circulation even if they’re not put into practice the way they used to be. I honestly don’t have a problem with this but I also think a lot of people misunderstand it. Sometimes it’s elitism (in a bad way) but a lot of the time that’s just a misconception. Really, think about it.
What makes a person successful? What makes someone a “winner”?
To me it has nothing to do with competition, not directly.
Competition definitely has its place, don’t get me wrong. When you’re working with someone and they’re the kind of person you’d just like to hit, there are plenty of other (more legal) ways of smashing them to fucking pieces. If you work with people like that you can outperform them. If you’re playing basketball, sliding past and dunking that fucking ball can be a halfway decent substitute for breaking their jaw. But that’s really only one kind of winning.
If you think in terms of high and low art, that would be a lower form of winning. It’s comparative, context specific, and centered around an external event. The higher art of winning, to me, has an even narrower focus. You. Just you. The only comparisons are to what you’ve managed to accomplish before. The only one to compete against is yourself. In essence, the true nature of winning is singular rather than competitive. Competition is only worthwhile if it leads to that.