Duty fulfillment regarding a social role presupposes the existence of people who have an expectation regarding the occupant of that role, that is a life focused on competition. To act on the coherence of one’s own biography presupposes that it must continue. Acting toward goals dictated by the culture and intelligence presupposes that there are achievable ends within the time frame of a historical existence. But if the individual acts solely on the basis of an end, he is acting precisely on the inexistence of a world around him. With or without the world, he would act the same way. Acts then acquire a supra-temporal, supra-historical meaning, that is, eternally man should do so before the world exists or when it ceases to exist. Here action is taken as the direct expression of a divine quality that acts without the existence of the world.

Who does the guy should talk to, to who must he respond to? His family, society, history? All these things will perish, so it is not that. If we erase the connection to God, his life becomes a collection of meaningless acts.

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. — Possibility

If awareness, connection, and collaboration was some sort of overarching principle, then trying to achieve this consciously would be simply the naturalistic fallacy. My argument is that we are in fact "thrown" in situations of "dealing with" by being born at all. My evaluation is that the wrong thing to do is to put more people into situations of dealing with. Whether or not collaboration is or is not taking place, makes no difference to this evaluation.

If I create for you burdens to overcome, like a really mundane Hercules having to overcome all those trials (but think any daily common or uncommon burden instead), then I have wronged you. No amount of appealing to overarching themes of collaboration, awareness, and connection overrides this fact of causing burdens for other people be a wrong acted upon someone else.

So going back to the theme of this thread...
Even though it isn't competition proper as I define it (consciously competing with others for resources, points, objectives, etc.), in an abstract sense, people are competing against life itself. This takes three major forms- survival, comfort-seeking, finding entertainment to keep one occupied (which ironically, is one reason people consciously enter into competition proper like sports, games, etc.).

Yes.

Evolution aside, competition by itself creates efficiency and quality like nothing else, the stakes range from economic, political, social, sexual and psychological. Co-operation and competition aren't mutually exclusive and competition isn't mutually exclusive with being kind and generous. Capitalism is efficiency and quality orientated, competition is what makes it great. Context is important, a person can be a ruthless CEO, a charitable community member and a loving parent. However, when you are saying something is competitive, this may simply be a result of a meritocracy or just following rules which stipulate the rules of the game.

Yes. — Brett

Of course, someone will counter and say I don't mind encountering the trials, so surely others would not.

1) You cannot know if other people will like the trials on whole or in part. But the claim is that any trial unduly imposed on another is wrong.

2) Even if a person identifies with the trials being imposed on them, it is still wrong as again, any trial unduly imposed on another is wrong. The trials cannot be ended without ending life itself. The trials were never agreed upon for the terms of what they would be. The trials never go exactly how one would want to maneuver them. The trials can go terribly wrong. The trials can never be gotten rid of. For all these reasons and more, imposing trials for another unduly is wrong. That is what is going on here. Certainly, the competition imposed by a system of supply and demand can fall into this.

3) I think Benatar does have a good case that people can be delusional about their own well-being. Someone with an overriding mental condition, let's say, who struggles with it for a lifetime, may have happy moments, but may be unaware of how much flourishing is hampered by their condition. They are deluded into thinking that their diminished quality is as good as it actually is. Rather, if they only knew how much their imposition was causing harm, they would see how much they have lost in terms of how really good were the goods or how really bad their bad experiences were. Even further, there is a case that even so-called "well-adjusted" people might on the whole be delusional about how good their past and future experiences were and will be. The trials truly were not great, and yet people fit them into narratives to cope and move forward. Further, these narratives become justifications for creating other people who will also go through these well-known trials, and further will experience things unintended and even unknown to the parent. Thus, harmful aspects of being exposed to a competition are enacted on and imposed for other people and people think this is permissible. Is it? Like other trials of life, the harmful aspects of competition are also an imposition that is unnecessary to cause for another.

If awareness, connection, and collaboration was some sort of overarching principle, then trying to achieve this consciously would be simply the naturalistic fallacy. My argument is that we are in fact "thrown" in situations of "dealing with" by being born at all. My evaluation is that the wrong thing to do is to put more people into situations of dealing with. Whether or not collaboration is or is not taking place, makes no difference to this evaluation. — schopenhauer1

Your evaluation of the ‘wrong’ thing to do is based on your priority of individual capacity, and the assumption that this is the ONLY capacity with any objective value or meaning. My view is that you’re expending so much effort trying to reject the underlying principle, arguing against the situation of being born, as if what matters most to existence is how an individual feels about it. To me this doesn’t make sense - mainly because I believe the primacy of the ‘individual’ is an illusion of five-dimensional perspective, and ‘being born’ is already a collaborative effort.

So going back to the theme of this thread...
Even though it isn't competition proper as I define it (consciously competing with others for resources, points, objectives, etc.), in an abstract sense, people are competing against life itself. This takes three major forms- survival, comfort-seeking, finding entertainment to keep one occupied (which ironically, is one reason people consciously enter into competition proper like sports, games, etc.). — schopenhauer1

What you’re competing for is the capacity to exist on your own terms, according to a relational structure of meaning and value that prioritises your consolidated individual ‘self’ as the only existence that matters. It seems to me like you were led to believe you were the centre of the universe, and then unceremoniously thrust into the real world. I don’t envy your perspective.

What you’re competing for is the capacity to exist on your own terms, — Possibility

As opposed to your structured concept of being, I don’t see that Schopenhauer is dictating his own terms, if anything there are no terms, and those you do choose are existential acts. Then the question is are those actions authentic? Many are not, many are made to fence off the abyss. Many actions are carried out to justify previous actions. Many actions bolster cultural norms.

Somehow we have to face the possibility that life is meaningless. That to me seems to require constant effort, or conflict, which is a battle against this threat, which is, in my view, competition. The alternative is to just “be” in the Buddhist sense of the Will creates suffering. If not then in a way you are competing with yourself, against the knowledge reason gives you, that there is nothing.

as if what matters most to existence is how an individual feels about it. — Possibility

That's all that matters. No one else lives my life.

To me this doesn’t make sense - mainly because I believe the primacy of the ‘individual’ is an illusion of five-dimensional perspective, and ‘being born’ is already a collaborative effort. — Possibility

Even if this was metaphysically true, it is not epistemologically so, so would not matter to the experiencer.

What you’re competing for is the capacity to exist on your own terms, according to a relational structure of meaning and value that prioritises your consolidated individual ‘self’ as the only existence that matters. It seems to me like you were led to believe you were the centre of the universe, and then unceremoniously thrust into the real world. I don’t envy your perspective. — Possibility

Huh? How are we not thrust into the "real world"? I don't deny other people are in the world, also thus thrown and having to deal with in their own way. Just because we interact with each other to get stuff accomplished, doesn't diminish the dealing with that each individual does.

Something has to account for the state of humanity. I don’t see that your awareness, connection and collaboration comes anywhere close to this.

Somehow we have to face the possibility that life is meaningless. That to me seems to require constant effort, or conflict, which is a battle against this threat, which is, in my view, competition. The alternative is to just “be” in the Buddhist sense of the Will creates suffering. If not then in a way you are competing with yourself, against the knowledge reason gives you, that there is nothing. — Brett

Well-stated. I would just add that as far as I see, survival, comfort, and entertainment are the general categories of the striving. Within those, we create myriads of other woes and worries.. but usually in relation to what though? Work-stuff, maintaining some semblance of comfort, finding stuff to keep one occupied. All the fuss for those three basic categories.. everything else is derivative- the jealousy, the planning, the psychological posturing/guessing, all for those three main goals. We need to maintain resources. We don't like discomfort. We don't like being bored.

Cultural milieu will change the forms/threshold of these categories though. A homeless person living with no showers or air conditioning may find this not needed over time. A middle class Westerner must make sure every dish is spotless perhaps. These are comfort-related, but in relation to culture. Nonetheless, it goes back to those categories.

Similarly, hunter-gatherers discussing where to migrate to next for food and office politics and intrigue are related to economic needs which relates to how we survive. These are survival-related, but in relation to culture. Nonetheless, it goes back to those categories.

I think this is interesting in relation to the OP; “Who are the 1%”, which I think went off the rails a bit, but it made me look and think about just who those people are. There were posts about them being parasites, etc, and destructive to society, which is probably true in different ways. But reading about these people it seems to me that ambition is the driving force. Everything, hard work, buying and selling, long term planning, etc. serves that ambition. Money is not really the issue, except maybe as a measure of the level of success of that ambition.

So this ambition. What else is it but the effort to fence off the abyss? Maybe the most extreme of attempts. And look at the damage. I don’t think there is a viable alternative to Capitalism, but I do think the reasons that drive it are the efforts to avoid the truth. Naturally no good will come from it.

Its survival of the domesticated not survival of the fittest (Aliens=>Chickens, Wheat, Cows, Dogs, Cats). The only exception to this is Cockroaches and the future offspring of Cock roaches. Are you familiar with Haim Shore? Ethiopia's history was largely effected by the rise of Islam. There is a Holy book that says an ~Alien sacrificed Ethiopia temporarily. I believe there will be even greater things for the future of Ethiopia. As for Sub-Saharan Africa i also believe there will be great things for them too? Are you familiar with my friend's 10 dimensional linked list relationship finder?

Am i a Daoist? No i'm not a Daoist but they typically are fairly intelligent.

I'm not preaching i'm just being vague. Don't go getting your feelings hurt now.

#Shark_Fighter_Nation

scratch that. i'm not sure what People on these wishy washy forums mean by preaching. Was i preaching? Don't go getting your feelings hurt. Video games are a wonderful way to relieve stress. Have a wonderful day, week and possibly year. You might be the greatest thing since sliced bread but how would i measure that at this point in time. What does judging mean?

As opposed to your structured concept of being, I don’t see that Schopenhauer is dictating his own terms, if anything there are no terms, and those you do choose are existential acts. Then the question is are those actions authentic? Many are not, many are made to fence off the abyss. Many actions are carried out to justify previous actions. Many actions bolster cultural norms.

Somehow we have to face the possibility that life is meaningless. That to me seems to require constant effort, or conflict, which is a battle against this threat, which is, in my view, competition. The alternative is to just “be” in the Buddhist sense of the Will creates suffering. If not then in a way you are competing with yourself, against the knowledge reason gives you, that there is nothing. — Brett

I don’t see facing the possibility that life is meaningless as such a battle - unless this conflict is with your own terms, that you are necessarily meaningful.

Huh? How are we not thrust into the "real world"? I don't deny other people are in the world, also thus thrown and having to deal with in their own way. Just because we interact with each other to get stuff accomplished, doesn't diminish the dealing with that each individual does. — schopenhauer1

I’m not trying to diminish the ‘dealing with’ - I’m only putting it into a perspective that isn’t so hung up on the primacy of the individual imagination. You can complain that you didn’t choose to exist in this way, and therefore life in itself is an act of cruelty inflicted upon your apparent entitlement to choose the terms of your own existence (as if that’s the case) - but it doesn’t fix the problem. The problem is that we are not yet in a position to choose the full terms of our existence, because we are not yet sufficiently aware, connected or collaborating with existence to accomplish this. And we won’t get there by halting all attempts to relate to what we don’t understand. Suffering - prediction error - is how we improve relations overall, by learning from them. When we focus on the primacy of the individual, we lose sight of the bigger picture. All of this takes time, energy and resources that the ‘individual’ doesn’t have enough of to accomplish anything meaningful for their own benefit. Except to wage a constant and ultimately losing battle for survival, comfort and entertainment.

Something has to account for the state of humanity. I don’t see that your awareness, connection and collaboration comes anywhere close to this. — Brett

The state of humanity is a result of the extent to which we oppose this: by justifying ignorance, isolation and exclusion.

prediction error - — Possibility

What’s a “prediction error”?

The problem is that we are not yet in a position to choose the full terms of our existence, because we are not yet sufficiently aware, connected or collaborating with existence to accomplish this. And we won’t get there by halting all attempts to relate to what we don’t understand. — Possibility

In the meantime we have to live this life. And I don’t see that what @schopenhauer1 and I are saying is halting all attempts to relate to what we don’t understand. In fact I see it as looking straight into the eyes of what we don’t understand, without fear.

Edit: Sorry, “without fear” is a little dramatic.

What’s a “prediction error”? — Brett

Prediction error is an interpretation of experiencing pain, humiliation, loss and lack - suffering. It describes the extent to which a prediction of reality (and its subsequent allocation of resources, capacity and value) does not align with an observable relation to reality, without assuming the fault must lie with the state of reality itself.

In the meantime we have to live this life. And I don’t see that what schopenhauer1 and I are saying is halting all attempts to relate to what we don’t understand. In fact I see it as looking straight into the eyes of what we don’t understand — Brett

Well, you don’t HAVE to LIVE this life. You’re living this life because you don’t perceive the value or potential in any other option. But options are available - there is more variability in how we live ‘this life’ than most of us are willing to admit.

The difference is that you (or at least @schopenhauer1) seem to perceive what we don’t understand as conditions we’re forced to ‘deal with’, whereas I see it as aspects of reality that we relate to in ways which can inform our understanding long before these conditions are determined. It’s not something we need to fight or compete with - if we’re willing to learn from prediction error, to contribute our resources, capacity and value towards understanding mutually beneficial methods of relating, and to accept our individual existence as fundamentally unnecessary.

and to accept our individual existence as fundamentally unnecessary. — Possibility

How is that different from;

Somehow we have to face the possibility that life is meaningless. — Brett

Life is about survival. And there are many means to survive. Competition is about winning, not matter the cost. That is not necessarily survival. Sometimes cooperation leads to a better outcome for survival. Sometimes it does not.

Of course, we have an incredible gift, the human brain. We can decide that survival isn't the most important thing in our lives. It is our choice.

The difference is that you (or at least schopenhauer1) seem to perceive what we don’t understand as conditions we’re forced to ‘deal with’, whereas I see it as aspects of reality that we relate to in ways which can inform our understanding long before these conditions are determined. It’s not something we need to fight or compete with - if we’re willing to learn from prediction error, to contribute our resources, capacity and value towards understanding mutually beneficial methods of relating, and to accept our individual existence as fundamentally unnecessary. — Possibility

This all comes from a view that the individual doesn't "count" in some way. But as I stated earlier, whether or not there is really such thing as "individuals" metaphysically, we live our lives as if we are individuals, which is effectively the same thing. You cannot be taught to not be an individual, I'm sorry. Identity comes with the linguistic minds we operate from. So, that being the epistemic reality, it goes back to dealing with life for each individual.

and to accept our individual existence as fundamentally unnecessary.
— Possibility

How is that different from;
Somehow we have to face the possibility that life is meaningless.
— Brett — Brett

This all comes from a view that the individual doesn't "count" in some way. But as I stated earlier, whether or not there is really such thing as "individuals" metaphysically, we live our lives as if we are individuals, which is effectively the same thing. You cannot be taught to not be an individual, I'm sorry. Identity comes with the linguistic minds we operate from. So, that being the epistemic reality, it goes back to dealing with life for each individual. — schopenhauer1

It isn’t that the individual doesn’t ‘count’, but rather isn’t necessary. And it isn’t necessary to live our life as if we are individuals, but the fact that we often consider it so important to do so is what renders our individual life meaningless overall.

It is identity that holds us back. Living our lives as if we are individuals is part of our conscious development, but it needn’t restrict us. You CAN be taught to transcend individual limitations with a focus on increasing awareness, connection and collaboration. Our capacity to relate to reality, and to each other, goes beyond linguistics, and beyond our sense of ‘self’.

‘Epistemic reality’ is just the horizon. The fear of ‘falling off the edge’ is real, but it’s unfounded. If you have the courage to regularly experience individual boredom, discomfort or risk, you may be surprised at what you learn about yourself and your relation to the world. Those discoveries, to me, are what life is all about - at this level of awareness, anyway.

If you have the courage to regularly experience individual boredom, discomfort or risk, you may be surprised at what you learn about yourself and your relation to the world. — Possibility

This is quite patronising. You’re suggesting that having the philosophical position that life has no purpose, that it is meaningless (and I think that creates confusion) that those people are lacking courage to experience particular aspects of life, or disinterested in learning about themselves, as if they spend their life locked in their room.

And yet Zen Master Shunryu Suzuki said “I discovered that it is necessary , absolutely necessary, to believe in nothing ... no matter what god or doctrine you believe in, if you become attached to it, your belief will be based more or less on a self- centred idea ... But I do not mean voidness ... This is called Buddha nature, or Buddha himself.”

This is quite patronising. You’re suggesting that having the philosophical position that life has no purpose, that it is meaningless (and I think that creates confusion) that those people are lacking courage to experience particular aspects of life, or disinterested in learning about themselves, as if they spend their life locked in their room.

And yet Zen Master Shunryu Suzuki said “I discovered that it is necessary , absolutely necessary, to believe in nothing ... no matter what god or doctrine you believe in, if you become attached to it, your belief will be based more or less on a self- centred idea ... But I do not mean voidness ... This is called Buddha nature, or Buddha himself.” — Brett

It was not my intention to patronise, or to suggest that you specifically lacked the courage to experience boredom, discomfort or risk. The argument presented is that by being born we are necessarily forced as an individual into constantly pursuing entertainment, comfort and survival - but I think this is just a consequence of attributing all meaning to the ‘self’.

We are commonly taught not only that being an individual is meaningful, but also that life itself has some pre-ordained meaning or purpose. I think recognising that there exists no inherent meaning to life, but that we are confronted instead with the overwhelming noise of potentiality beyond imagination, is a key development in our awareness, but it can seem like abandonment or ‘thrown-ness’ by comparison. From this position of a meaningful ‘self’, it’s no surprise that we perceive everything we relate to as meaningless.

Buddha flips this perspective, and instead relates from a sense of ‘self’ that is fundamentally indistinguishable from that to which it relates. What is meaningful then is not an individual identity or life, but everything and nothing, without prejudice. How we distinguish a relational position to this reality with each interaction is to live meaningfully - but not as a meaningful individual.

I don’t believe I’m contradicting Suzuki. There is a difference between believing something with an awareness of uncertainty, and believing IN something to the point of attachment, where it becomes integral to a consolidation or identity of ‘self’.

FWIW, we are not all that far from each other’s perspectives, I think.

FWIW, we are not all that far from each other’s perspectives, I think. — Possibility

Yes, I’ve noticed that in previous OPs.

What is meaningful then is not an individual identity or life, but everything and nothing, without prejudice. — Possibility

Yes, this is right. Which means that life does not have to be competition.

What is meaningful then is not an individual identity or life, but everything and nothing, without prejudice.
— Possibility

Yes, this is right. Which means that life does not have to be competition. — Brett

Agreed. Nor does it have to be about survival.

Natural selection? From where did this come from. All I see is variety. Everyone having their own ideas on how to live.

I find fulfillment in creation, not destruction.

Agreed. Nor does it have to be about survival — Possibility

I beg to differ. By default living requires survival, usually in a cultural milieu. Unless you practice suicide by asceticism (pace Schopenhauer)..thats what youre doing, along with seeking comfort, and forms of entertainment (which religion and studying philosophy as a hobby fall into). People dont like to hear this reduction, but its true.

By default living requires survival, — schopenhauer1

But default, living is about dying.

Life is about survival. — Philosophim

Too limiting.

Natural selection is, fundamentally, a competitive mechanism based on only two outcomes; success and failure.

The mechanism is not competitive. This is fussy, but I think there are some slidings or context in the OP. One could argue that the different individual life forms and potentially species or groups may compete for resources or may die and be resources for others. But the mechanism is not competitive. It's not competing against anything.

Natural selection is, fundamentally, a competitive mechanism based on only two outcomes; success and failure. — Benj96

Though most organisms must have other organisms to survive. So the competition is not binary, there is inherent intra and extra species and individual collaboration, even between prey and predator..

Also the title of the thread 'life being 'all about competition.' It's not all about it. And I think we need to be clear about what is being referred to. Are we including the intentions and goals of organisms? These are clearly not all about competition, most clearly in social mammals, but including things like like lichens where collaboration is inherent in its identity.

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. — Benj96

This is conflating the make of, for example, animal motivations with why those motivations might have continued. IOW the animals may cooperate because its ancesters benefitted from cooperative behavior, but nowhere in this process need the collaborative behavior be driven by selfish desire. Some animals who cooperated or had empathy or urges to collaborate survived. They were not driven by selfish desire, but rather..... natural selection did not eliminate them.

Another way to put all this is to say that natural selection selected for, amongst other things, love, cooperation, collabortation. empathy even across species. Those things are not REALLY selfish. They are what they are. At some point they were beneficial, but that does not amount to them being selfish, which is a description of inner states and attitudes. Beneficial does not equal selfish and sometimes, for the individual, they lead to death.
IOW

It still benefits the doer. — Benj96

is not correct. It may benfit similar genes in kin, or it may not even one saves a member of another species or a complete stranger at the loss of your own life. IOW you cannot reduce our motives to selfish ones, nor can you say that they benfit the
individual (not in evolutionary terms) in all cases. There's an ontological confusion going on.

Why is it that psychopaths disproportionately hold high level CEO positions. — Benj96

And if later they are not in those positions or if in some cultures those with power tend not to be psychopaths.....? And in fact tribal leaders have no been, in general, psychopaths.

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

Are we? That's certainly how some people define success.

Too limiting — MondoR

Indeed life is. From the outside its survival, comfort seeking, and finding entertainment. From the first person its dealing with situations. Dealing with getting through the manueverings of a society and existence itself. Doesnt matter if its an office, driving on a slippery highway, a coal mine, overcoming boredom, finding meaning in something, reading, hunting,gathering, hut building, dancing around the tribal fire, natural disasters,pandemics, other peoples actions, drinking, mental illness, getting warmer, cooler, finding the best product for your needs, debating metaphysics, watching a mo ie,playing a game, looking up information on the internet, eating, shitting, wiping, flushing, sewers, journals, cities, buildings, farming, war, religion, one upsmanship, laundry, chores, relationships, articles cleaning tour dwelling and living area...