{"id":6702,"date":"2016-01-25T05:04:24","date_gmt":"2016-01-25T05:04:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/01\/25\/anti-chessism-not-confined-to-muslim-lands-and-why-competition-is-good\/"},"modified":"2016-01-25T05:04:24","modified_gmt":"2016-01-25T05:04:24","slug":"anti-chessism-not-confined-to-muslim-lands-and-why-competition-is-good","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/01\/25\/anti-chessism-not-confined-to-muslim-lands-and-why-competition-is-good\/","title":{"rendered":"Anti-Chessism not Confined to Muslim Lands and Why Competition is Good"},"content":{"rendered":"

It is not just crazed Islamists<\/a> who condemn chess.<\/span><\/p>\n

Grandmaster Larry Evans, in his column "Evans on Chess" (Chess Life<\/em>, September 2005, pp. 46-47), reproduces a letter from an anonymous high school science teacher from Northwest Louisiana. It seems that this fellow introduced his students to chess and that they responded enthusiastically. The administration, however, issued a policy forbidding all board games. In justification of this idiocy, one of the PC-heads argued that in chess there are definite winners and losers whereas educators need to see that everyone succeeds.<\/span><\/p>\n

Please note that it is bad preparation for a world in which there are definite winners and losers to ban games in which there are definite winners and losers.<\/span><\/p>\n

GM Evans points out that this lunacy has surfaced elsewhere. "In 1998, for example, Oak Mountain Intermediate School in Shelby County, Alabama (a suburb of Birmingham) banned chess (because it is too competitive!) but had two baseball stadiums with night-lights for evening play." (CL p. 47) <\/span><\/p>\n

One of the things that liberals have a hard time understanding is that competition is good. It breeds excellence. Another thing that is not understood is that competition is consistent with cooperation. They are not mutually exclusive. We cannot compete without cooperating within a broad context of shared assumptions and values. Competition need not be inimical to cooperation. 'Competition is good' is a normative claim. But competition is also a fact of life, one not likely to disappear. A school that bans competitive activities cannot be said to be preparing students for extramural reality.<\/span><\/p>\n

Competition not only breeds excellence, it breeds humility.  When you compete you become better, but you also come to know your limits.  You come to learn that life is hierarchical.  Competition puts you in your place.<\/span><\/p>\n

Part of the problem is that liberals and leftists (is there any difference nowadays?) make a fetish of equality. Now I'm all for equality of opportunity, equality before the law, treating like cases in a like manner, and all the rest of what <\/span>may be subsumed under the broad rubric of formal or procedural equality. I am opposed to discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and creed. I want people judged, not by the color of their skin, but  by the content of their character. (And precisely for that reason I judge your typical rapper and your typical race hustler to be a contemptible lout.)<\/span><\/p>\n

But as a matter of fact, people are not<\/em> equal materially viewed, and making them equal is not a value. In fact, it involves injustice. It is unjust to give the same grade to a student who masters algebra and <\/span>to a student who barely understands it. People differ in ability, and they differ in application. Some make use of their abilities, some let them lie fallow. That is their free choice. If a person makes use of <\/span>his abilities and prospers, then he is entitled to the outcome, and it is unjust to deny it to him. I don't deserve my intelligence, but I am entitled to what I gain from its legitimate use. Or is that a difficult distinction to understand?<\/span><\/p>\n

There will never be equality of outcome, and it is fallacious to argue as many liberals do that inequality of outcome proves inequality of opportunity. Thus one cannot validly infer<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

1. There is no equality of opportunity<\/span>
from<\/span>
2. There is no equality of outcome<\/span>
except in the presence of some such false assumption as<\/span>
3. People are equal in their abilities and in their desire to use them.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

People are not equal in their abilities and they are not equal in their desire to use them.  That is a fact.  Liberals will not accept this fact because it conflicts with their ideology.  When they look at the world, they do not see it as it is, but as they want it to be. <\/span><\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>On Relevance in Education<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>The Decline of the Culture of Free Discussion and Debate<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Sam Harris and the Problem of Disagreement: Is Conversation Our Only Hope?<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It is not just crazed Islamists who condemn chess. Grandmaster Larry Evans, in his column "Evans on Chess" (Chess Life, September 2005, pp. 46-47), reproduces a letter from an anonymous high school science teacher from Northwest Louisiana. It seems that this fellow introduced his students to chess and that they responded enthusiastically. The administration, however, … Continue reading “Anti-Chessism not Confined to Muslim Lands and Why Competition is Good”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[169,64,119],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6702","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chess","category-conservatism","category-islamism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6702","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6702"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6702\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6702"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6702"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6702"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}