If you want to be philosophically anal-retentive about it (perhaps that's a redundancy), maybe the emotion of taking a step is really an emotion of having taken smaller steps. E.g., you feel good after making a catch (a step towards winning), not while turning your head or cupping your hands in a particular way (both of which are smaller steps toward making a catch). But it's pointless to break down the steps to this extent. The point is, we're differentiating playing the game from having won it. Moreover, the athlete example is a good one because plenty of athletes have a damn good time playing on losing teams. They're satisfied with taking the steps towards winning. I.e., they like what they're doing.
This last point, that the process of achieving brings its own unique pleasure, doesn't beg the question. It doesn't beg the question because, as I've been told recently, the logical fallacy of "begging the question" is really a circular argument and has nothing the fuck to do with "implying" or "raising" a question. So let's skip the goddamn question begging and get to the point.
The next philosophic question raised is: does size really matter? Uh, I mean, does success really matter?
(Though in case you've ever wondered what Aristotle had to say about penis size... in Generation of Animals he wrote: "such men are less fertile than when it is smaller because the semen, if cold, is not generative, and that which is carried too far is cooled." I think Aristotle might have been sucked into Plato's theory of forms in this case. Either that, or he was looking at an ancestor of John Holmes.)
