Or do they use the game to focus on developing their resources, capacity and value for future interactions? There is no right answer here - suffice to say, it is not all about winning. — Possibility

If they don’t win, for instance, they don’t go into the next round. What’s the point of developing resources, etc, if it’s not to win?

I dispute that only a healthy, secure being can develop intellectual faculties to play with ideas. There are countless examples through history of chronically ill, crippled, disabled, imprisoned and threatened human beings who have written or dictated evidence of highly developed intellectual faculties and ideas.
— Possibility

Of course, but I think you’re now playing games.

So in time that allowed other aspects of our nature to develop and our intellectual faculties to play with ideas. Only a healthy, secure being can indulge in this.
— Brett

You neglected to include a “secure being”. — Brett

My intention is not to play games, but to point out the assumptions in your thinking. An imprisoned or threatened being would be ‘insecure’ as such.

I’m not going to argue about luck. Yes it plays a part but if you think you can live day to day based on luck then good luck to you. — Brett

That’s not what I said. My point is that continuing to live may not be up to me, but how I interact with the world in the time I have is entirely my own doing. I’m not saying that at some point I won’t make the choice to compete for survival if it comes to that, but I’m under no illusions that it’s my only choice under any circumstance.

An imprisoned or threatened being would be ‘insecure’ as such. — Possibility

This is where, intentionally or unintentionally, I think you play games. Or maybe it’s just splitting hairs.

Anyone can have an idea. I have them all the time. But ideas must be proven in the world. The ideas that we have on families, love, sharing and collaboration evolved, developed in a healthy, secure environment. These are the ideas that have made us what we are and from that we develop further.

I’m not saying that at some point I won’t make the choice to compete for survival if it comes to that, but I’m under no illusions that it’s my only choice under any circumstance. — Possibility

I’m not saying that either. I’m saying that you want to survive.

That’s just silly. True, players on a team may communicate and collaborate with each other, but in an effort to win.
— Brett

Are you certain of this?
— Possibility

Why do you think they’re there? — Brett

Any number of reasons, really - from a paycheck to personal development. I’m not saying their reason isn’t to win, but it should not be assumed as such.

Or do they use the game to focus on developing their resources, capacity and value for future interactions? There is no right answer here - suffice to say, it is not all about winning.
— Possibility

If they don’t win, for instance, they don’t go into the next round. What’s the point of developing resources, etc, if it’s not to win? — Brett

That’s a for instance, not a definitive reason. I’ve watched a national level sporting team lose more than they won and fail to make more than the first game of finals for years under the same coach. Despite intense pressure from their supporters and critics, the players and the club continued to back that coach season after season, well beyond reason. It was apparent that their focus was not to win, but something else. It certainly doesn’t seem logical to develop resources in a national sporting fixture if not to win, but people do it all the time. They were making effective use of the resources, capacity and value available in the competition to achieve something other than the competition itself.

This is where, intentionally or unintentionally, I think you play games. Or maybe it’s just splitting hairs.

Anyone can have an idea. I have them all the time. But ideas must be proven in the world. The ideas that we have on families, love, sharing and collaboration evolved, developed in a healthy, secure environment. These are the ideas that have made us what we are and from that we develop further. — Brett

You don’t think that ideas can be proven in an environment that is insecure or unhealthy? Victor Frankl, for instance?

Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but only to challenge assumptions you seem to have about how the world is supposed to work. You can’t just dismiss anomalies and then claim to understand reality as a whole - your understanding must be able to explain those anomalies as well.

What happens when the individuals you are competing with are a resource themselves? Altruism. — Harry Hindu

What I've tried to do or what I feel is the correct no-nonsense interpretation of cooperation is that it ultimately is about sharing resources. Whether this comes about through unthinking instinct (non-human animals) or after careful deliberation (humans) is immaterial - the bottom line is resources are divvied up among individuals. If this attitude towards cooperation doesn't suit your disposition, consider sharing to be the bare-minimum essence of cooperation - it's raison d'etre if you will.

Coming to the matter of individuals themselves being resources, my hunch is that once something (animate/inanimate) becomes a resource, the same principle I mentioned in my earlier post will apply - at first the resource will be shareable - there'll be enough to go around for everybody - but then there's a cap on how many individuals a particular resource can support (the carrying capacity) and once that limit has been reached, competition becomes inevitable.

Altruism is an odd creature so to speak - it's born in and around what is basically the transition between cooperation and competition. The altruist, to make the long story short, removes itself from the competition so that cooperation remains sustainable. So, if youre seeing a lot of good people (altruists) around lately, it would be, paradoxically, a bad sign, an indication that cooperation is becoming unsustainable and some of us have to make sacrifices. :chin:

I’m not saying that either. I’m saying that you want to survive. — Brett

I can’t say that I do want to survive in every circumstance, though. As a parent, I know there would be circumstances where I would not hesitate to choose otherwise.

I’ve watched a national level sporting team lose more than they won and fail to make more than the first game of finals for years under the same coach. Despite intense pressure from their supporters and critics, the players and the club continued to back that coach season after season, well beyond reason. It was apparent that their focus was not to win, but something else. — Possibility

Does the exception prove the rule?

s a parent, I know there would be circumstances where I would not hesitate to choose otherwise. — Possibility

Yes, you want your child to survive.

You don’t think that ideas can be proven in an environment that is insecure or unhealthy? Victor Frankl, for instance? — Possibility

If you read my posts with a little less bias you’ll see that that is not what I mean.

Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but only to challenge assumptions you seem to have about how the world is supposed to work. You can’t just dismiss anomalies and then claim to understand reality as a whole - your understanding must be able to explain those anomalies as well. — Possibility

I’m not saying how the world is”supposed to work”. Where did you get that from?

I’m now going to throw in Schopenhauer’s World as Will.

Any comments @schopenhauer1?

I’m now going to throw in Schopenhauer’s World as Will.

Any comments schopenhauer1? — Brett

Schopenhauer would say that the "world" is built on striving-for-nothing, a principle when individuated through space/time/causality and the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason, plays out in the form of sufferings of all sorts for the subjective animal being.

I presume that what you mean by this is that we don’t need to define something by one of its many properties. — Brett

Yes, exactly.

However it’s also an aberration, it’s the actions of an organism that cannot cope
[...]
I’d agree [that that is not competition]. But life did not remain that way. — Brett

This is a thread about what life is "all about".
You have phrased it as "life is competition"
You cannot simply handwave counter-examples.

Especially when one counter-example lasted billions of years, and the other applies to intelligent life (and much of the discussion in this thread has been about how humans should view their lives).

Just to reiterate my point; life may not be about competition but it is about survival. — Brett

Between you and I we were just discussing competition, but OK, being about survival is a more defensible position in my view.

I would still say intelligent life would be an exception though. Me, typing this comment, does nothing to aid my survival. We could say it is a side effect of so-and-so instinct that was for survival, but that would concede the point that right now my action is neither motivated by survival nor does it aid my survival.

Also, it's worth pointing out that the OP very much considered competition to be purely at an individual level, not the group. Whether we talk about "competition" or "survival" I think it is important to point out that it is also at the group level for many species. So a lot of the logic in this thread implying altruistic behaviours must really be for personally selfish reasons, doesn't follow. Behaviours like that can evolve because of benefits at the group level.

So a lot of the logic in this thread implying altruistic behaviours must really be for personally selfish reasons, doesn't follow. — Mijin

When an animal takes care of an infant from another species, would you call that "altruistic?"

Causing people to "deal with" is bad. Life is about dealing with- many instances in fact.

what if he just kills himself, or spends the rest of his life trying to get his space hopper back? That would be an example of an organism not competing, no?
— Mijin

If he kills himself then he has found his situation to be more than he can bear. Yes that is an example of an organism not competing. However it’s also an aberration, it’s the actions of an organism that cannot cope any longer with the way life has turned out. You might say that he has lost the will to live any longer. — Brett

My point here is of an organism not competing and that the action of not competing was an aberration.

This is a thread about what life is "all about".
You have phrased it as "life is competition" — Mijin

The OP was not about what life is "all about". It was “Is life all about competition?”.

This is my first post: “ Yes, life is about survival. Competition is a strategy.”

Me, typing this comment, does nothing to aid my survival. We could say it is a side effect of so-and-so instinct that was for survival, but that would concede the point that right now my action is neither motivated by survival nor does it aid my survival. — Mijin

That’s very true. But I’m not trying to assert that all actions are about survival, but these actions we engage in come about because we have survived.

How could anything we do or know be passed on to us if the originators of that knowledge had not looked after our survival long enough for us to comprehend it then act on it?

When an animal takes care of an infant from another species, would you call that "altruistic?" — 8livesleft

Yes possibly.

We can describe animal behaviours in two ways:

1. Why the behaviour evolved. What selective pressure resulting in this being a common behaviour?
2. What are the consequences of this action?

In terms of (1), the answer is always going to be selfish, because we're literally asking what are the survival benefits of the action. However, even here, note that it is not selfishness on the part of the individual. It's harmful to the individual to spend time and resources on helping others, even their own young.
But it's beneficial to their genes, or the group's genes, to have a parental instinct.

In terms of (2) we can just look at the outcome and say that the action benefitted the group at a cost to the individual: it's altruistic.
This might seem a bit anthropomorphic, and I may agree.
From my perspective, the important thing is that we're consistent. If we are willing to call certain animal actions "greedy" or "spiteful" say, then we can talk about other actions being altruistic. If we want to reserve such words only for intelligent life, that's OK -- then all should be off the table.

My point here is of an organism not competing and that the action of not competing was an aberration. — Brett

Sure, and that's what I understood. What I am saying to you is that a single counter-example is a big problem for the philosophical idea that life is competition.
And the counter examples are more than just one, because this extreme example was just to illustrate a general point about intelligent life. Plus the other example of very simple single-celled life.

I’m not trying to assert that all actions are about survival, but these actions we engage in come about because we have survived.

How could anything we do or know be passed on to us if the originators of that knowledge had not looked after our survival long enough for us to comprehend it then act on it? — Brett

I'm not really sure what you mean by this.

Let's say I am designing a quantum computer. What does this action have to do with my parents who had never (and probably still haven't) heard of such a thing?
What do their actions hooking up have to do with my actions, except very, very indirectly, in terms of instincts?

What I am saying to you is that a single counter-example is a big problem for the philosophical idea that life is competition. — Mijin

Sure.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. — Mijin

Does it help if I’m talking about time and the evolution of man, not what happened last year.

In terms of (2) we can just look at the outcome and say that the action benefitted the group at a cost to the individual: it's altruistic. — Mijin

I don't see how say a cow raising a wolf can be beneficial to the herd.

Anyway, with regards to the act being instinctive then I agree completely.

The question is are acts of instinct - which in the evolutionary sense are based on self or genetic preservation, altruistic? Here, the cow is acting on instinct to care for a wolf cub.

Does it help if I’m talking about time and the evolution of man, not what happened last year. — Brett

Sure.

Let me give an example. Let's say we're talking about "playfulness". Now, it's not hard to think of how that behaviour may have had survival benefits: it involves learning about the world and our own bodies, training for activities like hunting or fleeing, and group bonding.

So that's why the playfulness instinct exists.
But a sentient species can press the play button any way and as often as it likes. If I, as a 41 year old man choose to spend a whole weekend playing board games, that's up to me and it has nothing to do with survival. Where the instinct came from is its story, not mine.

I don't see how say a cow raising a wolf can be beneficial to the herd. — 8livesleft

I was speaking of "the group" in the widest possible sense, because we were talking about altruism. When talking about human altruism, we normally consider the most altruistic acts as the furthest from provides any material benefit to ourselves.

The question is are acts of instinct - which in the evolutionary sense are based on self or genetic preservation, altruistic? Here, the cow is acting on instinct to care for a wolf cub.

And, as I say, my answer is I'm ambivalent, and only insist on consistencies. If some animal actions are vicious, or spiteful or greedy, then absolutely there are actions that fulfill the requirements for being altruistic or selfless. If we are preferring not to consider instinctual behaviour in this way, then let's not use any of those kinds of adjectives.

Okay I think I get where you’re coming from. For life to be about survival every aspect of our life, instinctive or chosen, would need to be based on survival.

I was speaking of "the group" in the widest possible sense, because we were talking about altruism. When talking about human altruism, we normally consider the most altruistic acts as the furthest from provides any material benefit to ourselves. — Mijin

With that definition, wouldn't instinctive acts be excluded? Caring for young is genetically self-interested, therefore, behaviors that stem from that instinct shouldn't be considered as altruistic.

If some animal actions are vicious, or spiteful or greedy, then absolutely there are actions that fulfill the requirements for being altruistic or selfless. — Mijin

When it comes to animal behaviors, I don't tend to use such labels either since they're all instinctive in nature. There's no malice, intent to harm unnecessarily and likewise, no good will or anything of the sort.

So, relating that to humans, we tend to think that there's some sort of higher purpose or order but is there?

With that definition, wouldn't instinctive acts be excluded? Caring for young is genetically self-interested, therefore, behaviors that stem from that instinct shouldn't be considered as altruistic. — 8livesleft

Well we need to be consistent, and not engage in a bait-and-switch.

If we want to say that all instincts are selfish, because they are the product of natural selection, that's fine, but "selfish" here means serving the gene pool of the entire group, not the typical colloquial meaning of "selfish".

If we want to use colloquial "selfish", and use it as a jumping-off point for talking about how it's a dog eat dog world and we're all out for ourselves...then no, not all instincts are selfish.

So, relating that to humans, we tend to think that there's some sort of higher purpose or order — 8livesleft

Quite the contrary.
I'm saying that human behaviour is complex and often quite difficult to pare down to a single instinct.
If there is some over-arching interpretation of all human actions, then a case needs to be made for that. I do not believe such a case has been made in this thread yet.

I’ve watched a national level sporting team lose more than they won and fail to make more than the first game of finals for years under the same coach. Despite intense pressure from their supporters and critics, the players and the club continued to back that coach season after season, well beyond reason. It was apparent that their focus was not to win, but something else.
— Possibility

Does the exception prove the rule? — Brett

Sure - in the scientific sense that it shows the ‘rule’ needs to be clarified, or understood more precisely.

But I’m not trying to assert that all actions are about survival, but these actions we engage in come about because we have survived.

How could anything we do or know be passed on to us if the originators of that knowledge had not looked after our survival long enough for us to comprehend it then act on it? — Brett

This could also be understood as life being about passing on knowledge, with survival a strategy.

This could also be understood as life being about passing on knowledge, with survival a strategy. — Possibility

@Brett

Is it what life is about here or what brings about "these actions"? I believe it the latter. Knowledge would be a strategy for survival. You can make an argument that anything is what life is about. Maybe it's about making plastic. I think Brett's point is that Darwinian evolution works by differential survival rates based on contingent changes of the organism and its adaptation to the environment. The ones that can't adapt, don't survive. Competition would be the wrong word to use when not intentional. Differential survival rates and maladaptation would be more appropriate here. When used in an intentional way, for cultural reasons, that is a different thing. That is at a different area of organization (social psychology) and has to deal with how societies want to bring about some sort of outcome. If it is business, the outcome is production/consumption/price level equilibrium. If it is a game, it is the feelings of outdoing your opponent, working as a team, and using your skills, etc.

Is it what life is about here or what brings about "these actions"? I believe it the latter. Knowledge would be a strategy for survival. You can make an argument that anything is what life is about. Maybe it's about making plastic. — schopenhauer1

I agree. It’s a matter of perspective. If (for argument’s sake) existence was about increasing awareness, connection and collaboration, then ‘survival’ would be a strategy for living systems: continue to live. And if this was perceived to be the only available strategy for increasing awareness, connection and collaboration - if all a living system perceived was resources, capacity and value to be consumed/absorbed/possessed - then, as you say, it’s not so much about competition as differential survival rates and maladaptation.

With an awareness of differentiated systems (entities) in relation to these resources, etc., then competition is perceived as the key strategy for those whose only way to increase awareness, connection and collaboration has been to continue to live. Even though other strategies may be available, they may not be apparent, except by chance.