We are born into a world where we are expected to strive for success : which to most is to have the best of everything; the best wealth, the best recognition, the best popularity and influence. — Benj96
Well you have now. — Daemon
Another way to look at the dualistic competition of Nature is in Hegel's notion of historical Dialectic, which has three prongs : Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. I think of the resolution of oppositions as the directional vector of progressive evolution. There are winners & losers in evolution, but the process always succeeds in moving forward. :smile:Natural selection is, fundamentally, a competitive mechanism based on only two outcomes; success and failure. — Benj96
The more awareness, connection and collaboration, the greater our success. — Possibility
Competition is just a matter of quantitative perspective - it’s an arbitrary choice that we continually make and re-make in terms of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion: to compete, to communicate, or to collaborate. — Possibility
But if that’s the case, then where did this focus on maximising individual wealth, influence and recognition come from? It’s a reductionist consolidation of natural selection from a limited self-conscious perspective, giving primacy to the individual. — Possibility
Yes, life is about survival. Competition is a strategy.
If, hypothetically, all our needs were catered for: food, shelter, etc, would we still be competitive? — Brett
However natural selection is not usurped by these observations. In fact the same selective forces can demonstrate how seemingly cooperative behaviour can develop from selfish individualistic desire to survive. I have more chance of success if I am seen to be in a large group where someone else may be eaten instead. — Benj96
A lot of the day is just dealing with, dealing with, dealing with. — schopenhauer1
Sure, but what if you leave out “about”? “Life is competition”. — Brett
So these are things people will say to spin competition as good. — schopenhauer1
True. But why tolerable?
— Brett
What do you mean by the question? — schopenhauer1
But each of those words “ perceived potential” even on their own sound very insubstantial. Perceived by who and potential of what? I’m guessing it would have to be something inherent in all people and apparent in all cultures. And is a means or an end, is it like permanent revolution? — Brett
If we observe life in its many forms is there anything consistent in them? — Brett
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.