burnt said:
Best is too subjective. What someone else thinks is the best may not be what you think it the best.
Yep yep yep. Also, it depends in what way you mean. Say you were 'the best' in one field - a very slender chance bearing in mind how many people there are in the world, but you were completely adrift in another field. I'd rather be rounded.
There's so many examples to choose from, but here's one from my life and one that illustrates the point very well. I still play and have played chess and backgammon very extensively. Chess in particular seems to be a game that can force people to become insular, not only because of the nature of the practise you do, the nature of the game itsel, but also because of the nature of the brains that can play it.
Now, there were plenty of people better than me, and in order to compete with them I would a)have had to be single minded about chess from the age of 6 b)have to dedicate every waking hour to chess.
I'd much rather be well rounded and nowhere near the best in my field. It's important to point out that these things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but to get to be 'the best' you often have to sacrifice other things.
The other point I wanted to make is that the concept of 'best' implies competition with others, caring about being better than others - and by extension being hurt if you don't succeed (that's what the subject of the thread implies, that if you're going to fail then there's no point trying). It should be about
self-improvement - of course there's a point trying, if only to be the best you can within your own limits. So you don't conquer the world? Who cares, as long as you are happy, fulfilled and rounded.