I want to make a point about value. Namely, what we value will always be some sort of combination of our intrinsic desires mixed with the object we value’s external exclusivity and rarity. The intrinsic aspect will be the result of our hard-wiring and conscious choices while the external aspect will be contained in physical realities (e.g. limited resources) and group perception (the extent to which we conceptually label something as exclusive or worthwhile).
Competition helps us determine value by breaking things into hierarchies. Once we’ve determined what the competition is about and what the “rules” are, we can sort out the best and the worst (to more or less exactitude depending on the nature of the competition and the rules).
This is important for two reasons: (1) it helps explain why we take so much pleasure in sports or games (in the broadest sense of the word), and (2) it helps explain why creating a meaningful philosophy of life is difficult.
In terms of point (1), games make the objective clear, and we take pleasure in this clarity of purpose and clarity in determining value. More or less, the rules of a given game are listed and understood, the “winners” and “losers” are objectively defined, and we can determine rank within a large hierarchy depending on what exactly we are choosing to value.
Point (2) is inextricably linked with point (1). In other words, there are no clear “rules” in life nor is there a clear “game” to be played. It is unclear who or what is valuable and how you can determine value in a term as broad as “living.” Sports and games bring us the clarity of purpose and value we’re looking for on a micro-level but don’t supply us with much on the macro-level.
Some people, almost always unconsciously, have defined their philosophy of life in macro-terms similar to the rules of a “game.” Their purpose may be something as simple as “money” or “sex.” These viewpoints can easily be regarded as shallow, but at least they do supply the person with some sort of sense of overall purpose and meaning (and maybe that’s better than defining no clear meaning at all).
A philosophy of “love” may certainly be important and ethical, but the term itself seems too amorphous to really be a guiding force (as compared to something as concrete as “money”). Even if you’re main goal or purpose is to love and treat everyone kindly, it still doesn’t answer the question of how you exist at 2PM on a Tuesday.
If the default modern materialistic viewpoints were in fact making people happy, there wouldn’t be too much to quibble about. But it hardly seems to be the case that the everyday successful person in modern America is roaring with joy.
Given our discussion of value, this doesn’t seem surprising. Once you continually have the things you want, they are no longer rare and thus less valuable. Hence the depression of the trust-fund kid or child-star – eventually a Mercedes is just a car, a five star restaurant is just basic sustenance, sleeping with a supermodel is just another activity. Having an iPhone in 1999 would be unbelievable (how rare!). Having the same iPhone as the guy to next to you on a plane is neither good nor bad – it’s functional.
By objective standards (food, shelter, healthcare), the living conditions of the average American in 2011 are considerably better than the average American in 1811. But are people happier? Are we working less? Are the people with the most time for leisure and most disposable income the happiest?
Going back full circle, if value is contained in rarity and our desires, and what we desire is material, modern man will not work less but work more as technology improves. This is because modern man will be driven to create value for themselves through material competition for money, goods, and status. As the world becomes more global and interconnected, the desire to be at the top of the totem pole will be greater than ever (through sheer awareness of others “value”) and loftier than ever (a very rare slice of people will have an incredible amount of wealth and power).
The people at the bottom will be upset with not having the things at the top, and the people at the top will be unhappy because the things they sought are no longer rare and thus stripped of much value. The people striving in the middle at least have something to aim for (the top), but it’s unlikely that materialistic striving equates with happiness.