Isn't it a requirement of really living to want to be the best at something?
Even if you're only the best at something really irrelevant, like collecting stuffed frogs, everyone wants to have their place.
But what's the best thing to be the best at?
(In fact, as a side note, isn't the phrase 'the best' rather tortological?)
Here's a few possibilities (in no particular order): science, painting, music, writing, religion, orating (policitics), parenting, medicine, philosophy...
Of course (and very thankfully) the answer is different for each individual, but is one career, or calling, objectively better than any other?
In order to answer this question I need to define 'best', which is of course impossible, and will defeat the question by self-defining the answer. But that is only because I am inherently subjective.
Perhaps one way to objectivise the question is to consider the natural state of these positions in society. For example, consider it in terms of evolution (that is to say: evolution of culture and civilisation rather than biological evolution).
[I preface further argument by quickly dealing with fame. I argue that fame is not in of itself survival in the sense I seek. The survival I seek is linked intrinsically with the calling that is to propogate it.]
Science constantly evolves and survives in improved forms from generation to generation. In fact, science has arguably (definitely) allowed human civilsation to 'transcend' natural selection, so it clearly has great power. Where a good scientific idea is created it is then used as a foundation for further science to develop upon its back. Hence scientific ideas survive well. In terms of the classic evolution value for 'best', being survival, science is strong.
Painting has its similarities. Certainly it has developed over the centuries, with technique being refined. But painting is subject to popularity and trends of fashion. Modern Art, for example is so substantially different to what has gone before, in some cases, that it might be considered original, in other words, that which has gone before it has not survived within it. (And it may well be that much Modern Art will not survive long (in terms of centuries). We can only hope so!) Painting therefore appears weaker than science.
Music can be argued in the same vein as painting, perhaps it is even a more extreme example. Musical trends change so fast that one can scarcely rely upon even some of the most successful music surviving even a couple of decades. (Unless of course you subscribe to the School of Rock and believe all modern music is derived from classical riffs!)
Writing I would like to argue is stronger than painting and music. I would argue this on the basis that it communicates ideas in a more fundamental way which strikes to the heart of all human experience and therefore is lasting. Of course, writing coincides with many of these other options, so really I should redefine and state it as 'fictional writing'. Even then it can sometimes be hard to separate from philosophy, politics and religion.
Religion? Tricky one. I could cite Pascal's razor here, but I'd rather cover that another time. The point is, in terms of the survival (of one man's contribution) it could quite possibly fall down as very weak. Most religions look down upon pride, and so a man successful in religion ought to shun the fame (and therefore survival) that might otherwise follow. There are of course excpetions (such as some popes, Buddha, Joan of Arc, St Thomas Aquinas, Jesus) but they too conflict with other discliplines such as philosophy and/or are massively aberrant (unusual) people. My only conclusion here is that many men have no doubt been highly highly successful people have simply not survived (probably even in the Darwin sense given vows of chastity!).
Oratorship is a different thing to politics, as can be seen by contrasting Hitler and Churchill with Bush and Pol Pot. (Notice the balance and unbalance there... Wonderful neutrality...) What I'm thinking of is the ability to lead men and/or revolutionise social policy. I could cite Marx but again I'd be moving into philosophy. One question must be answered, does a politician's personal contribution survive if 1) his fame survives; or 2) his policies (or evolved versions of them) survive. It all depends on the politician's goals in existence one supposes, but I shall try hard to make an objective decision and call the second the worthier of a politician's goals. Looked at in this way, politics can be very weak. It follows only the winner, and since even the winner eventually loses in politics, it appears to be a dangerous career to approach for survival. On the other hand, the influences of Rome (and the individual emperors) could be said to reach to today, as could the invasions of England the American Civil War. Who knows how long the work of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln will influence and develop society? A little like Religion, I imagine many very very successful politicians will not, however, have survived.
Parenting? I find it very hard to be objective about this as I am too consumed with irritation at endless mommy blogs. Still: indubitably parenting is essential and quite unarguably succesful parenting will survive to the next generation. However, its long term survival (which is all that really matters) is perhaps limited. It relies too heavily on the personailities and wills of those generations which succeed, which are the children. One might argue against that, of course, that the best parenting will yield a child who will be both successful (in the sense of this discussion) and capable of passing on the parenting experience s/he has had. The actual art of parenting, while important, seems weak in a survival sense.
Medicine is an example of practical science (a commonly considered metaphysical divide). I would argue that this makes it inherently weaker than science itself in the sense within which I conduct this argument, namely that as an individual contribution it does not survive. Interestingly Chekhov considers this point, in Ward 6 his doctor begins to treat randomly when he realises the grand insignificance of his contribution, whereas in The Grasshopper his doctor nobly gives his own life for one of his patients and one cannot help but be impressed by the inherent value of this action. One might further argue the practice would survive by virtue of allowing another man to live who would then have a lasting effect himself. This is, however, obviously a subordinate survival, the medical act itself is extinguished completely in the annals of history. In a survival sense, therefore, medicine is not a good choice (though of course it has other immediately practical and/or moral advantages).
Philosophy is perhaps the killer. Naturally my personal admiration for the subject may bias me, but as I've found through discussing the other options, it lies behind everything man does and is. It is the very thing which separates man from beast. It's very definition, 'love of wisdom', comprises science, religion (in the sense of truth), writing and politics quite clearly. The others, I would argue, are mere derivatives. The natural conclusion is that to be truly the 'best' philosopher truly fulfils the requirements of survival in that it gets behind and within all that follows it.
[My friend would have me consider sports. I dismiss it (though I love it) in one question: how does the strike of a golf ball, the volley of a football or the dunk of a basketball survive?]
This subject requires books and books to cover, so much of my argument is flawed by being improperly introduced or incompletely presented, but I seek to provoke thought.
