Welll....yeah. That's why it's called winning and not losing. Cause you win when you win and you lose when you lose.

But what do winners win and losers lose?

Well...yeah. Otherwise winning would be losing and then losing would be winning. But then losing would become winning and winning would become losing and nothing will have happened in the first place.

No, no, I'm wondering what is it that winners actually win, and what is it that losers actually lose? How do we know that the winners ain't really losing or that the losers ain't really winning?

Here's a story to emphasise my point:

In ancient China an old Taoist farmer lost his horse. Now this was a big deal in those days as the horse did much of the work. The farmer's neighbour caught wind of this and came to offer his condolences. "What terrible news, how will you manage your land with no horse?" said the neighbour. The farmer shrugged.

The next day the farmer's horse returned and brought with it three wild horses which it had met in the wild. The neighbour caught wind of this nad came to offer his congratulations." What great news, you now have four horses, three of which you can sell, you must be delighted?" said the neighbour. The farmer shrugged.

The next day the farmer's son was training one of the wild horses when he was thrown from it's back and injured himself so badly that he would never walk again. The neighbour caught hold of this and came to offer his sorrow. "Poor you, now your son will never walk again, and you will have to farm the land alone, I'm so sorry" said the neighbour. The farmer shrugged. "That farmer's a fool" said the neighbour to himself. "He doesn't even have the sense to know when life is dealing him a good hand or a bad hand".

The next day an army officer arrives at the house recruiting soldiers. The law is that every young and able man must join the army and be sent off to fight in a bloody and unjust battle. A battle where none will survive. The officer examined the crippled son, saw that he was of no use, and left. The neighbour caught hold of this and came to offer his congratulations. "Who would have thought it, your horse running away, it surely saved your son's life. You must be delighted?" said the neighbour. The farmer shrugged.

The story goes on like that forever...

That doesn't stop each story from being either a win or a loss. It only changes when the parameters change. Losing a horse is still losing. Just because it came back with more horses doesn't make losing the horse any more of a loss when the loss actually happened, it just negates the loss later on. Turning it into some big philosophical question is fun and all, but winning is still winning and losing is still losing.

Just ask Charlie Sheen. Dude knows stuff.

But parameters are forever changing because life, the universe and everything in it is constantly changing, things lead from one thing to the other. Spring becomes summer, summer becomes autumn and so on. But the point of the story is that we can never know where events will lead, whether in the long run something is for the better or for the worse.

If I win the lottery next week it might seem wonderful, let's say I use my winnings to go on holiday and I get on the plane and it crashes and I'm killed then my winning the lottery wasn't so wonderful after all. Or maybe it was wonderful. Maybe my dying early was wonderful because later in life I was all set to suffer a mental breakdown, go on a senseless killing spree and ruin countless lives. Do you see my point?

If you win the lottery , you still won the lottery regardless of what happens afterwards.

So winning is still winning.

But if winning the lottery ruins your life or ends your life prematurely, was winning the lottery a good thing?

Winning the lottery didn't ruin your life. The actions after you won the lottery did. So winning is still winning.