Victoria (from the Latin for “victory”)—how pleasant this word sounds. Victoria is a highly coveted lady for many of us. Whether we like it or not, we strive for victory in all our activities. Nietzsche wrote about the “will to power” that drives the subject. Yes, victory is perhaps the best “legitimate” way to realize the will to power.
From the striving for victory, any human activity aimed at increasing one’s chances of victory seems quite consistent. One such method has always been “enlightenment”—that is, the maximum study of the subject of one’s activity (in all European languages, this word is associated with light, illuminating the darkness). This includes science—the study of recurring phenomena for the purpose of prediction—and technology—the creation of rules of conduct and tools that increase success. Such methods have always been considered honorable throughout human history: winning through technology, science, and greater order has always been worthy of praise, unlike other “dishonest” methods. So, we’ve legitimized science and technology – for the sake of victory!
Sporting competitions have always been a place where victory and the struggle for it have been the metaphysical center of every event. Therefore, the incorporation of science and technology in the name of victory in sport is absolutely fair and justified.
But let’s consider what this has led to in team sports, and in particular in Europe’s favorite sport, football. Modern approaches to analyzing player actions, experience in tactical formations, experience in selecting the right player to partner with another player, the use of big data analysis, and the use of AI have essentially made it possible to dissect this beloved game down to its very essence. Experts now know exactly which movements of an individual player will create a potentially dangerous moment, and which are excessively risky due to the potential loss of a player.
Recently, as many of you know, the Champions League final took place. I watched all 120 minutes of the game, including the penalties. And what did I see? I saw algorithms moving around the field, carrying out their instructions for the game. I saw two teams: one of them played the role of risk-free attack destroyers, and the other, risk-free attack creators. There was practically nothing pleasing to the eye throughout the entire game: an unbridled impulse to take a completely risky decision, going beyond the algorithm. As a result, we got an extremely effective, but often aesthetically poor product. Especially when two strong, well-prepared teams meet.
Essentially, it was like a FIFA computer game: units ran around the field and did what they were told – no more, no less. Yes. Victoria would be impossible without it today. But do we need this kind of football?
And more broadly: do we need a life where there is no room for uncertainty? We live in an era when the “will to power” is increasingly realized through the will to control and the will to predictability. Science and technology, originally tools for the liberation and expansion of human capabilities, are gradually becoming tools for its taming. Perhaps I’m confusing the levels, and the problem isn’t knowledge itself, but the triumph of calculation, when calculation begins to displace everything else. When victory at any cost (even at the cost of beauty and meaning) becomes the sole criterion. But when a structure no longer leaves room for genius or risk—is that a good structure?
Finally, is a leap into the unknown itself, if it’s a leap into the known?
sorry to belabour the point.