How Winning and Losing Can Be Synergized -- The Big Picture
Updated: Feb 11
For every reasonable human being, winning and losing are, by default, complete opposites. That's because a person who constantly loses can never be deemed a winner, and someone who constantly wins, cannot really be deemed a loser. Likewise, it would be nonsensical for the loser to be winning by default, and still remain a loser, and vice versa.
However, we may fail to look at this logical example from an additional dimension. If we only look at things from a single dimension, we would also lose a significant portion of our understanding of the topic at hand.
In the case of this example, our viewpoint may remain shallow or one-dimensional. Resorting to such simplification is a bad idea because the bigger picture needs to be considered in order to understand reality.
Therefore, if we add the second dimension of time ('B') and not only the state of being ('A'), we would soon realize that the picture is more complicated.
In this case, winning and losing could be seen as a process or an evolution, rather than a static state of existence. It would only make sense to do so as philosophers, given that reality is not static but dynamic. We can also learn from this that it is extremely important not to give in to confirmation bias.
Because if we gave in to this bias, we would judge reality by a trait it does not regularly have (being static). In general, attributing confidence to doubtless claims would therefore be a mistake. Make sure you are open-minded enough to explore the possibilities that exist beyond your personal impressions.
Anyways, not only winning and losng can exist on a sequence, but they can also cooperate, or lead to one another. Let me give you a more concrete example: When Nazi Germany lost in WWII, some Germans won as well. After the fall of Hitler, that regime had a second dictator. In other words, thanks to Hitler's death, someone actually got to be in charge of his empire, even if briefly. A more obvious example in this context is the forced workers at labor camps, who won their freedom thanks to the defeat of their forced employers by the end of the war.
In other words, if Nazi Germany had not lost World War II, people would not have won anything related to the war. Therefore, loss is beneficial not only to opponents, as seen in the example of the second and last dictator of the Nazi regime. Ironically, even if the cause you work for, willingly or otherwise, loses, you might still earn something in return.
Arguably, there is no win that is without investment. Investment is essentially the loss of resources for a particular cause. Please note that not every loss is a complete loss. A complete loss has no return; any other "impure" loss, has. If it had not, it was "pure", as in "complete".
Thus, any loss that is not "pure"/"complete" can be used in synergy for a greater win. And even if you win, or achieve something, very swiftly and easily, you still invested some time into it. Therefore, there is no such thing as a win that is pure of any loss.
In business, you must sacrifice/invest funds in order to gain funds in return. Speaking from experience, in order to run a successful blog, for example, you must invest in marketing. Losing money to marketing means that you increase your chance of growing the money that you make from your blog. Never expect to become a successful blogger without any sacrifice on your part, monetary or otherwise.
There is no cost that is not a loss, by the way. If you earn when paying, you would create a paradox. And arguably, paradoxes do not exist in reality, if reality is logical and not purely absurd. That of course includes optical illusions, as they are intentionally made to decieve, not convince.
As with the initial premise of the article, in order to overcome such paradoxes, the contradictions must not overlap within the same period of time. It would be like putting more than one meal on a plate that is intended for one meal maximum.
Looking at the bigger picture means giving the participants/agents of a situation the importance they deserve. The importance they deserve is in relation to your attempt to understand reality, and not necessarily as of itself.
You cannot look at the general picture without attributing value, because the different components of that picture have different values, relative to your own purposes. If a rocket from a hostile nation is headed your way, and you just dropped your ice cream on the sidewalk, surely your own safety is far more important than going back to the vendor and buying a new ice cream.
Should you prioritize the ice cream, you may lose your life, and not just your money. Should you look for shelter or simply lie on the ground, you will have to be still, safe but not refreshed. This analogy teaches us that we should value our own safety over comfort because survival deserves to be above temporary pleasures.
Should we fail to give things the importance they deserve, in the general picture of a subject or situation, we may easily become more irrational. Hence why we must evaluate the things we gain and the things we lose within many actions we perform, if we want to be reasonable and wise.
Overestimating a loss may lead to negative surprise. Overestimating a win may lead to disappointment over your own lack of proportion.
And it is in our interest to win, AKA, to succeed within the intentions of our actions. Should we decrease our losses, we will become more successful and more of "winners".
This can be applied to any field of activity, from academic to romantic. Because if you want a partner to stay by your side, logic would only dictate that you must sacrifice some for them in order to prove your love and loyalty to them, which is the exchange of your losses. Should you not compromise yourself, not give gifts, not treat them somewhere nice, you will be losing them instead of your own resources.
How can we function wisely without having our priorities in check? Should you neglect a partner because you don't want to sacrifice for them? This is exactly where the different values of wins and losses exist within the general picture.
My advice is: Strive to prioritize the things and beings which are most valuable to you. That way, you may reduce regretable mistakes by taking on more important tasks for them, first. I can tell you by experience that it's preferable when you have deadlines.
And I haven't broke a deadline for years. Did anything important on time. Perhaps the last time I broke a deadline was a round a decade ago. Never understood those who underestimated importance, when importance is clearly present.
And even if you don't have a definite deadline for something, the deadline to your life can happen at any time.
That is why I couldn't care less about the fact that I'm 25. I already have a will and am working on a regular basis. It is more important to take care of the more important things first, because there might be a time where you would not be able to do them. So seize the moment and at least try making sure you will win more than lose.
Waste too much of your time stalling and idling, and you will lose time and opportunities for winning in the name of your ambitions. The win of a vacation might not be worthy as the loss of time spent being productive. Maybe for rejuvination, which is a loss of time synergized for winning. Not necessarily anything else, if you care enough to be productive.
All I can say is that I know the many sacrifices I made in this line of work. Philosophy and management can be very emotionaless. I began repressing myself significantly, to the point of losing much of my capacity to feel... I often feel dead inside.
Maybe one day I'll find someone who loves me enough that they will accept me entirely. Thus far, I never had such person. But sacrifices are needed to be made in the name of work, regardless.
And for me, life is just business. Workday after workday. For I live to win at work. I only intend to lose at death, when I will be discharged. It's all because I see much reason to think at the far greater picture.
