The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
“Courage is the discovery that you may not win, and trying when you know you can lose.” Tom Krause
(Location 127 - Kindle version)
People sometimes (or more than sometimes) say that participating is what matters rather than winning. Some say trying and loosing is better than doing nothing. The above-mentioned quote from the book gives more or less a similar idea.
I agree that some may find this encouraging. But I see this as a desperate measure to make a loss more palatable and easy to digest. It is an attempt to give some value to the lost party, although they remain as losers at the end of the day. What do you think?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
This is what losers say when they lose, while winners take home the trophy. This goes along with "beauty is on the inside." It can be argued this is what only ugly people say (pulled reference from the movie Liar Liar lolol).
Dangerous ideas such as this has led to "participation trophies" for kids when they lose. They are rewarded for literally, nothing. They are conditioned for reward with minimal/zero effort soooo why even try if I still get the cookies?
JDBowden wrote: ↑August 6th, 2022, 3:02 pm
This is what losers say when they lose, while winners take home the trophy. This goes along with "beauty is on the inside." It can be argued this is what only ugly people say (pulled reference from the movie Liar Liar lolol).
Dangerous ideas such as this has led to "participation trophies" for kids when they lose. They are rewarded for literally, nothing. They are conditioned for reward with minimal/zero effort soooo why even try if I still get the cookies?
Several things. First, while ugly people find solace in the idea of internal beauty, this fact doesn't lower the value of the initial comment for folks of all types of external beauty. I have a different view about the rewarding participation. No one, least of all the non winners, confuse a first place trophy with a participant reward, so I don't observe entitlement issues in that scenario. The winner feels exactly the same whether he has the only reward or if everyone gets something. Thus the only difference is to the non winners. What's the effect of running a race of 100 and handing out one reward? To the winner it's great, but to 99% it's not great. Doesn't sound like a very good way to grow the sport.
As to the OP, when evaluating acts of "courage" or "bravery" or "heroism" one must take into account what the alternative to performing the act in question is. And if the alternative is ridiculous, the original act is ordinary, not heroic.
“Courage is the discovery that you may not win, and trying when you know you can lose.” Tom Krause
(Location 127 - Kindle version)
People sometimes (or more than sometimes) say that participating is what matters rather than winning. Some say trying and loosing is better than doing nothing. The above-mentioned quote from the book gives more or less a similar idea.
I agree that some may find this encouraging. But I see this as a desperate measure to make a loss more palatable and easy to digest. It is an attempt to give some value to the lost party, although they remain as losers at the end of the day. What do you think?
It's all about self delusion.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
JDBowden wrote: ↑August 6th, 2022, 3:02 pm
This is what losers say when they lose, while winners take home the trophy. This goes along with "beauty is on the inside." It can be argued this is what only ugly people say (pulled reference from the movie Liar Liar lolol).
Dangerous ideas such as this has led to "participation trophies" for kids when they lose. They are rewarded for literally, nothing. They are conditioned for reward with minimal/zero effort soooo why even try if I still get the cookies?
I too think that these sayings are not said by the winners. They are a solace for those who could not become the best.
But I think it differs a bit when it comes to children. It can be hard for them to handle loosing, and sometimes it may affect their confidence which can be bad for their future. In that case a consolation price may reduce that harm.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
JDBowden wrote: ↑August 6th, 2022, 3:02 pm
This is what losers say when they lose, while winners take home the trophy. This goes along with "beauty is on the inside." It can be argued this is what only ugly people say (pulled reference from the movie Liar Liar lolol).
Dangerous ideas such as this has led to "participation trophies" for kids when they lose. They are rewarded for literally, nothing. They are conditioned for reward with minimal/zero effort soooo why even try if I still get the cookies?
Several things. First, while ugly people find solace in the idea of internal beauty, this fact doesn't lower the value of the initial comment for folks of all types of external beauty. I have a different view about the rewarding participation. No one, least of all the non winners, confuse a first place trophy with a participant reward, so I don't observe entitlement issues in that scenario. The winner feels exactly the same whether he has the only reward or if everyone gets something. Thus the only difference is to the non winners. What's the effect of running a race of 100 and handing out one reward? To the winner it's great, but to 99% it's not great. Doesn't sound like a very good way to grow the sport.
As to the OP, when evaluating acts of "courage" or "bravery" or "heroism" one must take into account what the alternative to performing the act in question is. And if the alternative is ridiculous, the original act is ordinary, not heroic.
You have a point there. Yes, whether the winner gets a price or not he/she will have the ecstatic feeling and the memory of winning. And those who could not become the first will not think of their consolation prices as gold medals. But the whole scenario can be different when it comes to kids as they may not grasp the full picture and the idea of a gift as an adult does.
Anyway, can you give a specific example for an attempt that is ridiculous while the winning act is ordinary?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
“Courage is the discovery that you may not win, and trying when you know you can lose.” Tom Krause
(Location 127 - Kindle version)
People sometimes (or more than sometimes) say that participating is what matters rather than winning. Some say trying and loosing is better than doing nothing. The above-mentioned quote from the book gives more or less a similar idea.
I agree that some may find this encouraging. But I see this as a desperate measure to make a loss more palatable and easy to digest. It is an attempt to give some value to the lost party, although they remain as losers at the end of the day. What do you think?
It's all about self delusion.
What do you really mean by the term 'self-delusion'? Is it related to 'self-reverence' or the narcissistic character of the winner? Or in case of the looser, the opposite?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
“Courage is the discovery that you may not win, and trying when you know you can lose.” Tom Krause
(Location 127 - Kindle version)
People sometimes (or more than sometimes) say that participating is what matters rather than winning. Some say trying and loosing is better than doing nothing. The above-mentioned quote from the book gives more or less a similar idea.
I agree that some may find this encouraging. But I see this as a desperate measure to make a loss more palatable and easy to digest. It is an attempt to give some value to the lost party, although they remain as losers at the end of the day. What do you think?
It's all about self delusion.
What do you really mean by the term 'self-delusion'? Is it related to 'self-reverence' or the narcissistic character of the winner? Or in case of the looser, the opposite?
The theoretical thought fabrications about winning or losing and courage are merely driven by self-delusion. If you just do this or that depending on contextual appearances there is no need to theorize about winning or losing and courage beforehand.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
JDBowden wrote: ↑August 6th, 2022, 3:02 pm
This is what losers say when they lose, while winners take home the trophy. This goes along with "beauty is on the inside." It can be argued this is what only ugly people say (pulled reference from the movie Liar Liar lolol).
Dangerous ideas such as this has led to "participation trophies" for kids when they lose. They are rewarded for literally, nothing. They are conditioned for reward with minimal/zero effort soooo why even try if I still get the cookies?
Several things. First, while ugly people find solace in the idea of internal beauty, this fact doesn't lower the value of the initial comment for folks of all types of external beauty. I have a different view about the rewarding participation. No one, least of all the non winners, confuse a first place trophy with a participant reward, so I don't observe entitlement issues in that scenario. The winner feels exactly the same whether he has the only reward or if everyone gets something. Thus the only difference is to the non winners. What's the effect of running a race of 100 and handing out one reward? To the winner it's great, but to 99% it's not great. Doesn't sound like a very good way to grow the sport.
As to the OP, when evaluating acts of "courage" or "bravery" or "heroism" one must take into account what the alternative to performing the act in question is. And if the alternative is ridiculous, the original act is ordinary, not heroic.
You have a point there. Yes, whether the winner gets a price or not he/she will have the ecstatic feeling and the memory of winning. And those who could not become the first will not think of their consolation prices as gold medals. But the whole scenario can be different when it comes to kids as they may not grasp the full picture and the idea of a gift as an adult does.
Anyway, can you give a specific example for an attempt that is ridiculous while the winning act is ordinary?
If your house catches fire and you grab your baby in your arms and race through the burning building to safety, you may be declared a hero, or you may be described as brave. But what else were you going to do? Stay in the burning building? No, ridiculous. Or maybe run out of the building but neglect to grab your baby? No, ridiculous. So the action wasn't heroic nor brave, it was the only reasonable alternative, it was ordinary.
People sometimes (or more than sometimes) say that participating is what matters rather than winning. Some say trying and loosing is better than doing nothing. The above-mentioned quote from the book gives more or less a similar idea.
I agree that some may find this encouraging. But I see this as a desperate measure to make a loss more palatable and easy to digest. It is an attempt to give some value to the lost party, although they remain as losers at the end of the day. What do you think?
It's all about self delusion.
What do you really mean by the term 'self-delusion'? Is it related to 'self-reverence' or the narcissistic character of the winner? Or in case of the looser, the opposite?
The theoretical thought fabrications about winning or losing and courage are merely driven by self-delusion. If you just do this or that depending on contextual appearances there is no need to theorize about winning or losing and courage beforehand.
Thinking (or theorizing) about winning, loosing, and courage beforehand is a different thing. But, in most occasions life offers us competitions, and at the end of the day some will be winners and some will be loosers. If this is inevitable, what is so bad about theorizing about the result? Atleast you will be mentally prepared.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
JDBowden wrote: ↑August 6th, 2022, 3:02 pm
This is what losers say when they lose, while winners take home the trophy. This goes along with "beauty is on the inside." It can be argued this is what only ugly people say (pulled reference from the movie Liar Liar lolol).
Dangerous ideas such as this has led to "participation trophies" for kids when they lose. They are rewarded for literally, nothing. They are conditioned for reward with minimal/zero effort soooo why even try if I still get the cookies?
Several things. First, while ugly people find solace in the idea of internal beauty, this fact doesn't lower the value of the initial comment for folks of all types of external beauty. I have a different view about the rewarding participation. No one, least of all the non winners, confuse a first place trophy with a participant reward, so I don't observe entitlement issues in that scenario. The winner feels exactly the same whether he has the only reward or if everyone gets something. Thus the only difference is to the non winners. What's the effect of running a race of 100 and handing out one reward? To the winner it's great, but to 99% it's not great. Doesn't sound like a very good way to grow the sport.
As to the OP, when evaluating acts of "courage" or "bravery" or "heroism" one must take into account what the alternative to performing the act in question is. And if the alternative is ridiculous, the original act is ordinary, not heroic.
You have a point there. Yes, whether the winner gets a price or not he/she will have the ecstatic feeling and the memory of winning. And those who could not become the first will not think of their consolation prices as gold medals. But the whole scenario can be different when it comes to kids as they may not grasp the full picture and the idea of a gift as an adult does.
Anyway, can you give a specific example for an attempt that is ridiculous while the winning act is ordinary?
If your house catches fire and you grab your baby in your arms and race through the burning building to safety, you may be declared a hero, or you may be described as brave. But what else were you going to do? Stay in the burning building? No, ridiculous. Or maybe run out of the building but neglect to grab your baby? No, ridiculous. So the action wasn't heroic nor brave, it was the only reasonable alternative, it was ordinary.
Well, it was a good example. But in that case, even if you fail and die while holding your baby (I wish no one such a fate!), you will be considered as a hero and your attempt will be praised (though you will not be aware of any of that). Then that will prove our initial quote from Tom Krause true.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
Several things. First, while ugly people find solace in the idea of internal beauty, this fact doesn't lower the value of the initial comment for folks of all types of external beauty. I have a different view about the rewarding participation. No one, least of all the non winners, confuse a first place trophy with a participant reward, so I don't observe entitlement issues in that scenario. The winner feels exactly the same whether he has the only reward or if everyone gets something. Thus the only difference is to the non winners. What's the effect of running a race of 100 and handing out one reward? To the winner it's great, but to 99% it's not great. Doesn't sound like a very good way to grow the sport.
As to the OP, when evaluating acts of "courage" or "bravery" or "heroism" one must take into account what the alternative to performing the act in question is. And if the alternative is ridiculous, the original act is ordinary, not heroic.
You have a point there. Yes, whether the winner gets a price or not he/she will have the ecstatic feeling and the memory of winning. And those who could not become the first will not think of their consolation prices as gold medals. But the whole scenario can be different when it comes to kids as they may not grasp the full picture and the idea of a gift as an adult does.
Anyway, can you give a specific example for an attempt that is ridiculous while the winning act is ordinary?
If your house catches fire and you grab your baby in your arms and race through the burning building to safety, you may be declared a hero, or you may be described as brave. But what else were you going to do? Stay in the burning building? No, ridiculous. Or maybe run out of the building but neglect to grab your baby? No, ridiculous. So the action wasn't heroic nor brave, it was the only reasonable alternative, it was ordinary.
Well, it was a good example. But in that case, even if you fail and die while holding your baby (I wish no one such a fate!), you will be considered as a hero and your attempt will be praised (though you will not be aware of any of that). Then that will prove our initial quote from Tom Krause true.
Yes, you will be DECLARED brave and/or heroic, but in reality you would be neither.
You have a point there. Yes, whether the winner gets a price or not he/she will have the ecstatic feeling and the memory of winning. And those who could not become the first will not think of their consolation prices as gold medals. But the whole scenario can be different when it comes to kids as they may not grasp the full picture and the idea of a gift as an adult does.
Anyway, can you give a specific example for an attempt that is ridiculous while the winning act is ordinary?
If your house catches fire and you grab your baby in your arms and race through the burning building to safety, you may be declared a hero, or you may be described as brave. But what else were you going to do? Stay in the burning building? No, ridiculous. Or maybe run out of the building but neglect to grab your baby? No, ridiculous. So the action wasn't heroic nor brave, it was the only reasonable alternative, it was ordinary.
Well, it was a good example. But in that case, even if you fail and die while holding your baby (I wish no one such a fate!), you will be considered as a hero and your attempt will be praised (though you will not be aware of any of that). Then that will prove our initial quote from Tom Krause true.
Yes, you will be DECLARED brave and/or heroic, but in reality you would be neither.
I think I have to agree with you here. What is the use of being named as a hero after facing a tragic death!
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
What do you really mean by the term 'self-delusion'? Is it related to 'self-reverence' or the narcissistic character of the winner? Or in case of the looser, the opposite?
The theoretical thought fabrications about winning or losing and courage are merely driven by self-delusion. If you just do this or that depending on contextual appearances there is no need to theorize about winning or losing and courage beforehand.
Thinking (or theorizing) about winning, loosing, and courage beforehand is a different thing. But, in most occasions life offers us competitions, and at the end of the day some will be winners and some will be loosers. If this is inevitable, what is so bad about theorizing about the result? Atleast you will be mentally prepared.
Like many others you seem to indulge in the self delusion I indicated. If you are free to decide to indulge in self delusion then you are free to do so. If not then not.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
