Is life all about competition?
Natural selection is, fundamentally, a competitive mechanism based on only two outcomes; success and failure.
We may argue that there are myriad examples of “cooperation”, “mutual symbiosis” and “teamwork” in the natural world so surely competition is not the only means of living?
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.
So a system of “every man for himself” can seem to establish a balanced ecosystem that we perceive to be Harmonious and cooperative when really it just demonstrates the natural limits of success in a competitive world.
But we as humans are different no? We desire virtues including compassion and generosity and kindness and putting others before ourselves. Perhaps these are derivations of competitive mechanisms that favour groups rather than some inherent selflessness, afterall you may be more popular (a success quality) if you are kind to someone else. It still benefits the doer.
A phenomenon of cultural evolution that stems from the idea of a group of humans performing better than an individual.
Why is it that psychopaths disproportionately hold high level CEO positions. Why is it that the dominant economic regime of the globe is based on competition. Even conception itself is a race.
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.
Is there anything more then competition in disguise in the world? For the record I’m not elucidating that this is a negative thing. Just a real one. And what does it mean to “choose” in this case. What does it mean to refuse to compete with everyone else? Is it even truly possible while still living or is it only the act of death in which one stops the race?
We may argue that there are myriad examples of “cooperation”, “mutual symbiosis” and “teamwork” in the natural world so surely competition is not the only means of living?
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.
So a system of “every man for himself” can seem to establish a balanced ecosystem that we perceive to be Harmonious and cooperative when really it just demonstrates the natural limits of success in a competitive world.
But we as humans are different no? We desire virtues including compassion and generosity and kindness and putting others before ourselves. Perhaps these are derivations of competitive mechanisms that favour groups rather than some inherent selflessness, afterall you may be more popular (a success quality) if you are kind to someone else. It still benefits the doer.
A phenomenon of cultural evolution that stems from the idea of a group of humans performing better than an individual.
Why is it that psychopaths disproportionately hold high level CEO positions. Why is it that the dominant economic regime of the globe is based on competition. Even conception itself is a race.
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.
Is there anything more then competition in disguise in the world? For the record I’m not elucidating that this is a negative thing. Just a real one. And what does it mean to “choose” in this case. What does it mean to refuse to compete with everyone else? Is it even truly possible while still living or is it only the act of death in which one stops the race?
Comments (173)
Hi Benj,
I agree with the first part but not the second. Of course those in a position to express their expectations for you expect (or hope) that you will succeed rather than fail, but speaking for myself I don't regard wealth, recognition, popularity or influence as particularly important indicators of success, for myself or for my children. I very much doubt I'm alone in this: I think if you asked, most parents would say they want their children to be happy, rather than wealthy, recognised, popular or influential.
Unfortunately we are largely governed by people who regard wealth, recognition, popularity and influence as the primary goal in life.
But what do those parents mean by "happy"?
It seems to me they mean exactly 'wealthy, recognised, popular or influential', they just don't spell it out like this.
How can a person be happy, without also being wealthy, recognised, popular or influential? It's not clear how such is possible.
This really made me laugh out loud. Have you never met anyone who was happy without being wealthy, recognised, popular or influential?
Well let's be fair now. I'm going to assume, considering your contentedness and use of the internet, you're from a first world country. So, you are wealthy, recognized, popular, and influential simply by matter of affiliation. You could have little to nothing in savings, be virtually unknown in your community and anything you ever say could constantly fall on deaf ears or otherwise be ignored. As an individual. Yet, you are not only subject to but endowed by the same rights and freedoms and resulting use/effect of wealth, influence, etc as the richest most popular persons in your nation. And so. The difference is a matter of personal ability to satisfy excess wants and desires on a whim and little more.
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:
I'll frame these two notions in terms of resource consumption:
1. Cooperation: individuals sharing a resource
2. Competition: individuals fighting over a resource
These two facts of life can be understood in terms of a consumer-resource relationship.
Imagine the earth's resources as a layered cake of chocolate and vanilla. Life emerges on earth, call these X, these first lifeforms consuming the vanilla resource. There's plenty of vanilla for everybody, the vanilla resource will be shared and there'll be cooperation. It so happens that 2% vanilla is the minimum needed for the survival of an individual X. As soon as the population of X exceeds 50 [50 * 2% = 100%] competition is inevitable as there are more individuals than the vanilla portion can support.
What happens next is diversification; some of these early lifeforms begin consuming chocolate, call these Y.
Again, there's plenty of chocolate for every Y and there's cooperation. If the minimum requirement of chocolate for one Y is 5% then as soon as the population of Y exceeds 20 [ 20 * 5% = 100%] competition will begin.
This cycle of cooperation-competition will repeat for every available resource on earth until all ecological niches are filled with life of one kind or another. :chin:
There's more that can be said but this much is more than enough to chew on.
Competition happens within certain constraints. It is either a part of some plan that is made or not. Your model suggests it changes as a function of some underlying condition outside of the context of the choices that are made.
What if those choices are an adequate measure of the choices made?
Human achievement is not an individual effort - everything we do is contingent upon the collaborative efforts of others, from the moment we are born. The more awareness, connection and collaboration, the greater our success.
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. It’s an impossible goal, by the way, a house of cards: those who appear to be getting there are actively maintaining a facade in at least one area by exploiting the other two. The rest of us are making daily sacrifices to maintain a tolerable balance in relation to those around us. It all seems so pointless from this perspective: an ongoing experience of individual pain, humiliation and loss, inflicted either on ourselves or on others.
Kant says that we can view existence as one, as one of or as the only one - this alters how we experience pain, humiliation and loss. It also alters how we view wealth (resources), influence (capacity) and recognition (value). 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.
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?
Quoting Possibility
So this “success” is what life is about. And what is that?
I’ve replied to and read a number of your posts in the past and have an idea where you’re coming from.
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?
Quoting Possibility
That is an interesting point.
Quoting Possibility
“Evolutionary biologists define exaptations as features of organisms that evolved because they served some function but are later co-opted to serve an additional or different function, which was not originally the target of natural selection. The new function may replace the older function or coexist together with it.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210003/
I think this is interesting in regard to your post about evolution. That an exaptation can serve an additional or different function does not mean it is necessarily beneficial in the long term.
I'll ask you a roundabout question. What happens if you don't like the things that you are supposed to like that are supposed to make life something like "zestful" and "lively" and one of the engines for "improvement" and "growth"?
Do you mean what if life is meaningless?
Sure, this is a philosophy forum and we can talk about what we think life is for, but we should keep in mind that that may simply be a value judgement that we are making.
More specifically in the case of humans, we can decide what our own life is for.
If I choose to dedicate my life to bouncing around on a space hopper, that's what my life is for.
I don't care if someone thinks life is about reproducing, or if that is the process that brought me into the world. I don't owe evolution anything, and I think my life is for bouncing.
Quoting Benj96
But this is a poor example.
In other species the individual regularly sacrifices themselves for the group. Now, we could argue that it is kind of a group selfishness that results in such behaviours.
And that's true. But it still breaks the rest of the OP. Because, no, it doesn't follow that individuals must necessarily be really thinking selfishly.
I just went back to one of your posts.
Quoting schopenhauer1
True. But why tolerable?
Quoting Mijin
Sure, but what if you leave out “about”? “Life is competition”.
Edit: just out of interest, would you say life is about survival or not. Or do you mean it’s an accident of circumstances without meaning?
I would still consider that a subjective judgement.
Let's go back to the guy who wants to spend his life bouncing on a space hopper. If we look at this guy and say "life is competition", what is that telling us, what understanding does that help us to achieve? What empirical data backs that claim up?
You do have a point which I’m thinking about.
If we observe life in its many forms is there anything consistent in them? The guy on the space hopper, his actions tell us very little about him. But what if someone came and took the hopper off him by force?
So these are things people will say to spin competition as good.
Quoting Brett
What do you mean by the question?
Quoting schopenhauer1
To convince you to play the game? The carrot on the stick. But my question then is how long has this been going on? And competition obviously exists before it’s used as a tool to manipulate the population, as in a consumer world,
Quoting schopenhauer1
This was related to the meaningless of life.
Perceived by the observer, and potential of their relation to the observed. Given that it will always be relative in this sense, does it need to be substantial? What kind of substance are you looking for?
Perceived potential is a process: strictly neither means nor end, or perhaps both-and. I think ‘permanent revolution’ is a contradiction - ‘perpetual’ seems more fitting.
Quoting Brett
This perpetual revolution of realising potential as perceived in relation to the dissipative state of the organism. That’s not to say the organism necessarily perceives this potential (let alone apperceives it), only that we do as a self-conscious observer.
Competition creates meaning in a meaningless world.
“ Competition is just a matter of quantitative perspective - it’s an arbitrary choice that we continually make ... to compete... “
— Possibility[/quote]
So what is compete?
Is life all about competition?
It is now.
Personally, I think the claim that features of organisms evolved because they served some particular function attributes more intentionality to natural selection than can be reasonably assumed. ‘Exaptation’ seems to then be a way to explain the change in functionality from its originally attributed ‘intent’. Intentionality is a realisation of purpose - of meaning attributed by a self-conscious observer.
Yes, I do recall a previous OP about your perspective on evolution.
Though it’s my feeling that features of organisms don’t evolve because they served some particular function. That would be intentionality. It’s complete chance that the evolving feature benefits the organism in the future.
So what is compete?[/quote]
It’s a quantitative perception of our existence as ‘the only one’, and therefore all resources, capacity and value we perceive beyond our own potential for awareness, connection and collaboration, we are motivated to either absorb/possess/consume or ignore/isolate/exclude. Experiences of pain, humiliation and loss are indicative of errors in our perception: either in attributing potential, or in our choice of quantitative existence in this interaction.
Quoting Possibility
Right, that’s competition is in whatever language you want to put it.
Agreed.
Quoting Brett
Yes. My point being that competition is only an arbitrary perspective of interaction, not ‘what life is all about’.
Two people enter a discussion: one perceives the exchange as purely competition, the other with the capacity to choose from compete, communicate or collaborate with each interaction. Regardless of the outcome, which of them do you think would suffer more from pain, humiliation and loss over the course of the discussion?
Quoting Possibility
Yes, I agree, but only in the context you put it.
Yes competition is not “what life is all about”, yes it’s an arbitrary perspective.
The way you put it is that there’s a lot more to life than competition, that “Human achievement is not an individual effort - everything we do is contingent upon the collaborative efforts of others, from the moment we are born. The more awareness, connection and collaboration, the greater our success.”
That’s true. It’s how we have evolved as social creatures creating communities. My position is that life is not about competition but about survival. Presumably that’s why we carry out collaborative efforts, because we’ve learned that survival depends on collaboration, awareness and connection. Because we are reasoning creatures we can create better futures.
Life might have some greater purpose, but that’s an end, and as you said a perpetual revolution, so there is no end. So then life is about being, but that’s synonymous with survival, you can’t have one without the other.
Edit: but competition is how we survived, it’s the nature of life at ground level. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily violent, but it’s about holding onto something or gaining something that another has the same desire for. That seems to be the history of life whether we like it or not. You and I are here because those that carried our genes survived the competition.
I think with your allusion to consistency, what you're implicitly saying is that if all life competes, then the statement "life is competition" is validated.
However, in general when we have a set of things that share some property, we don't feel the need to expand the definition to include that property. If we found that all lemons are high in zinc, we don't need to define lemons as high in zinc. We don't have to say all lemons necessarily are high in zinc, just all the ones we've seen.
And in the case of life competing, it's not merely the case that we have no reason to include it in our definition, but actually, there are counter-examples already:
1) In the case of your question about our space hopper friend, 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? Or is the suggestion that he (joking aside) no longer counts as life?
It's trivial to illustrate that humans break the notion of all individual organisms really being motivated by competition.
2) For most of Earth's history, the only life was single-celled and incapable of sexual reproduction.
They did not have any desire or ability to compete as such, but the environment favored certain mutations.
Now, if we count even that as competition, then we can apply this notion of competition to everything...
e.g. we can say that stars compete, since the environment favors certain stars to live longer and be more numerous than others.
Apart from this watering down the idea of competition too far, IMO, there's another more serious issue: When did we decide that it was a "Be the most numerous type of star" competition? Why not "Be the biggest" or "Be the brightest" or "Most metal rich" or "Most active" whatever?
It takes a subjective judgement to decide that, say, red dwarfs will one day have the highest population, therefore they're the bestest.
What happens when the individuals you are competing with are a resource themselves? Altruism.
I've spent a fair amount of time in the developing world, at one point for about half a year living out of a tent in a climate where it is rarely much above freezing and pisses down cold rain every day. I was still happy plenty of the time.
People I kept in touch with from my work in Egypt seem pretty happy. Their young. They have friends, girlfriends, despite being quite poor. My grandmother lives in the first world and talks about wanting to die all the time, and I don't blame here. Location ain't everything.
Evidence suggests that individuals' base line happiness changes very little over time or with additional wealth. It's called the hedonic treadmill. Being in the first world doesn't = rich. For one, low status matters more than raw material benefit to happiness. Secondly, American cities, Baltimore for example, have levels of violent crime on par with some of the worst Central American nations (i.e. the highest in the world), and people there can grow up in absolute squalor. Some neighborhoods I've lived near look like photos of Germany after WWII, but never get cleaner up.
Religiously, many other reasons for existence exist. To shape the soul and prepare it for knowledge of God. To seek redemption through Christ. You also have your Buddhists and Gnostics who reject the material world as accidental to meaning for the individual, which is to attain enlightenment.
I always enjoy your posts. They're thought-provoking enough to spur great debates, yet relatable and concise enough to be understood by a novice in philosophy.
I'd say there's plenty more than competition. Perhaps? The love. togetherness and "comfort", feeling "home" with members of your family. Thrill seeking hobbies and other entertainment such as skydiving or going to the movies. No one is "competing" during these times, they're just enjoying.
Quoting Benj96
I'd imagine a balanced view of "refusing to compete" doesn't mean rejecting literally every instance of competition no matter how small, ie. a friendly game of cards. Rather someone who would hold that position probably just doesn't want to turn every single interaction with his fellow man into a virtual "fight to the death" for every little thing. He's content with what he has and doesn't mind being second place. He has nothing to prove to anyone but himself, and potentially his idea of a higher power. He doesn't need approval from a world teetering on the brink of insanity, be it in the form of fame, glory, power, or unnecessary riches. He simply is content with the knowledge that at the end of the day when he rests his head for sleep, he was the best person he could be.
Im not saying it is not a feature of the world, but rather explaining how people spin it as good, just like many other features. We can self reflect on our situation and evaluate it. Thus, this aspect must be included in keeping species going- propaganda, enculturation, social pressure, and the rest.
Thus pillars of humanity need to propagate in any society:
1.) Some competition is necessary to keep it going. Thus, promote it as good.
2.) A lot of production is necessary to keep it going. Thus promote it as good.
3.) A lot of maintenance is necessary to keep it going. Thus promote it as good.
Non-existence hurt no one. Existence hurts everyone. However, you need to get people to go along with the agenda. People need to feel bad about not following the pillars. People naturally without any prompting get bored. Combine these two for more cultural and actual propagation.
Quoting Mijin
I presume that what you mean by this is that we don’t need to define something by one of its many properties.
Quoting Mijin
and that there’s no reason to exclude it as a property. So one of the properties/features, among others, of humanity is that it’s competitive.
Quoting 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.
If he spends the rest of his life trying to get the damned hopper back then it’s a sort of quest.
Quoting Mijin
I’d agree with that. But life did not remain that way. We obviously cannot regard the favouring of certain mutations as a definition of competition and then apply it to everything. Somewhere, somehow, life, once born into existence, had no intention of giving up. I think, though I can’t be sure, that all life fights to the death (Which is why suicide appears so confusing or confronting).
Quoting Mijin
Yes we could say that if we go by the favoured mutation theory, but we won’t.
Quoting Mijin
Well it’s true that in that context it’s a subjective judgement. However “we” did not decide that we will fight to the death to survive. The measure of why we “decided” what was best was our survival, whatever it takes. We now have advanced (cautiously used, please don’t jump on me) ways of surviving. We are no longer totally dependent on the cycles of nature or controlled by the brutality of life. Even our ability to collaborate or form tribes contributes to our survival. It may be that we collaborate because we are caring creatures, but whatever the reason it has contributed to our survival.
Just to reiterate my point; life may not be about competition but it is about survival.
But, again, this pandemic is stretching the capacity for cooperation in most stressed places in the world. However, I still believe that more cooperative cultures tend to fare better than individualistic cultures when it comes to these times.
Quoting Benj96
Presumably you regard competition as a psychotic activity, a human aberration. That the sickest rise to the top. I don’t know if it’s a fact that they disproportionally hold high level CEO positions.
Quoting Benj96
Where would you put people who compete in sport, who strive to train and push themselves to win or beat a world record?
Quoting 8livesleft
So what do you think is going on in a game of football?
Edit: And why do you think people cooperate?
Football or sports in general are activities we either engage in or watch for entertainment. That's all it is. Fun and entertainment.
We cooperate with each other because it is mutually beneficial to do so.
Sport is competition. Even a mountain climber on his own competes with the mountain. My point was that I don’t think competition only occurs in times of scarcity. It may be part of our nature to compete.
Quoting 8livesleft
Isn’t it possible that the mutual benefit is to survive? Isn’t it possible being part of a collective contributes to security, quality and quantity of good, successful child birth rates, general health and well being, which is about survival.
Obviously other aspects of human behaviour develop in that environment, but only in a healthy environment. No one wants to play when they’re starving.
You’re basing your reasoning upon an assumption that life is all about survival. You presume it’s why we carry out our collaborative efforts. I disagree with this, but I think we’ve had this discussion before. My basic argument is that if life is all about survival, then it ultimately fails, and we have not evolved equipped for the task. Reproduction is not about the survival of genes or gene carriers, but about the information they contain with regard to life. You and I are here because the information we have mattered to others as expressed. It’s not about surviving, but about relating the information we have to other information. And the information we have is about so much more than just life. Our genetic code is such a small part of it. The communities and culture we create are an expression of the relational structures between information that matters, regardless of our survival.
Life in totality - as the only one - is about consuming/possessing/absorbing resources, capacity and value. It may seem to be only about being or surviving, but no life exists in isolation. Life in plurality - inclusive of those that fail to survive long enough to reproduce - is about communicating variable access to resources, capacity and value. Life in unity - across all of existence - is about informative temporal interaction, collaboration for efficient and effective distribution of resources, capacity and value.
If you want to attribute survival as the ultimate quality of life, and competition as its process, then that’s your choice. Just keep in mind that it isn’t your only choice, or necessarily your best one, at that.
Quoting Possibility
Not necessarily. It’s because we have learned to survive so well that we have managed to survive the brutality of evolution. 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. Of course there are other things of value in life, otherwise we would not be chatting. But we have to be here to act.
Yes, there's a personal development aspect in engaging in such activities - by training for them, completing tasks, we become stronger, more skilled, while gaining a sense of achievement (and possibly rewards).
Quoting Brett
Yes, I completely agree. We are a self-interested species. Cooperative behavior aids in our survival and well-being.
Quoting Possibility
I’m not sure if I actually said that but I’ll think about it anyway.
Edit: yes it would be the ultimate quality of life. How could it not be? How can knowledge be passed on?
Sport need not be only about competition, though. It is competition only because we collaborate to arbitrarily limit access to a certain resource, capacity or value, creating conditions of scarcity. Those conditions are agreed upon for the purpose of the game. It is within the capacity of any football player or team to focus more on building communication or collaborative capacity and value than on competition. A mountain climber, too, collaborates with the mountain more than he competes with it.
Quoting Possibility
That’s just silly. True, players on a team may communicate and collaborate with each other, but in an effort to win.
But, suppose a small collective live together in a small village. Circumstance destroy their usual supply of food. What do they do? Do nothing and die and with it the potential of their genes and all the knowledge they have, or do something.
So it occurs to me that I might be talking about “Will”.
That may be your reasoning, but it’s a matter of perspective. The criteria by which you define ‘survival’ is limited to the transmission of genetic code. It is a consequence of what we have learned about life that the information in our genetic code matters to others as expressed.
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.
Survival may be a consequence of being here, but being here is not the same as surviving - the intentionality and awareness behind the act is assumed without evidence. I had a brush with death a few years ago that put this in perspective. I am not here because I chose or fought to survive. I am here by chance, blind luck, and I’m making the most of the opportunity - not for my own survival, but in pursuit of understanding reality. My ‘survival’ thus far is a bonus, too often out of my hands.
Quoting Possibility
I don’t think I’ve tried to define survive. The definition of survive I imagine is to continue to live. But anyway, even if that were true I haven’t restricted it to the transmission of a genetic code, but knowledge as well as collaboration and communication and all the other things we are known for.
Quoting Possibility
Of course, but I think you’re now playing games.
Quoting Brett
You neglected to include a “secure being”.
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.
Are you certain of this? What if they know that their injuries and ability are such that there is little to no chance of winning? Do they give up? Do they convince themselves beyond all evidence that there is a still a chance? 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.
Players on a team don’t just communicate with each other, either - they are also informed by their opponent’s behaviour, the movement of the ball and other conditions of the game. All of this information contributes to their capacity, as individuals and as a team, for future interactions. Collaboration is also not just about two people agreeing to work together, but also about making use of certain conditions to achieve something, whether or not those conditions are intended specifically to help you. Think outside the box.
Quoting Brett
It is the extent to which that small village is in communication and collaboration beyond their collective that they have the capacity to do something in this circumstance.
Quoting Possibility
Why do you think they’re there?
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?
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting Possibility
I’m not saying that either. I’m saying that you want to survive.
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.
Quoting 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.
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 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 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.
Quoting Possibility
Does the exception prove the rule?
Quoting Possibility
Yes, you want your child to survive.
Quoting Possibility
If you read my posts with a little less bias you’ll see that that is not what I mean.
Quoting 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?
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.
Yes, exactly.
Quoting 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).
Quoting 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.
When an animal takes care of an infant from another species, would you call that "altruistic?"
Quoting Brett
My point here is of an organism not competing and that the action of not competing was an aberration.
Quoting 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.”
Quoting 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?
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.
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.
Quoting 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?
Quoting Mijin
Sure.
Quoting Mijin
Does it help if I’m talking about time and the evolution of man, not what happened last year.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
[quote]Quoting 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?
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.
Quoting 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.
Sure - in the scientific sense that it shows the ‘rule’ needs to be clarified, or understood more precisely.
This could also be understood as life being about passing on knowledge, with survival a strategy.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
That's all that matters. No one else lives my life.
Quoting Possibility
Even if this was metaphysically true, it is not epistemologically so, so would not matter to the experiencer.
Quoting 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.
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?
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting Brett
The state of humanity is a result of the extent to which we oppose this: by justifying ignorance, isolation and exclusion.
Quoting Possibility
What’s a “prediction error”?
Quoting 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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting Possibility
How is that different from; Quoting 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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.”
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.
Quoting Possibility
Yes, I’ve noticed that in previous OPs.
Quoting Possibility
Yes, this is right. Which means that life does not have to be competition.
Agreed. Nor does it have to be about survival.
I find fulfillment in creation, not destruction.
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.
But default, living is about dying.
Quoting Philosophim
Too limiting.
Quoting Benj96Though 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.
Quoting 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 Quoting 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.
Quoting Benj96And 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.Quoting Benj96Are we? That's certainly how some people define success.
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...
I see it both ways, just depending on my mood.
Try learning a new sport or art.
Still, life is not necessarily about survival, or comfort or entertainment - that’s a matter of perspective, one that prioritises the individual. When someone focuses on risking their life on a daily basis, you can’t tell me their life is all about survival. And just because you may be able to interpret their actions to fit your own perspective, does not mean that’s what they’re doing. This reduction may be ‘true’ for you, but the reason people argue against this is not because they don’t like to hear it, but because it ignores the choices they make to deliberately invite risk, discomfort or boredom into their lives in pursuit of something bigger than their individual limitations.
The way I see it, this notion of ‘thrown-ness’ assumes the ‘self’ or ‘individual’ as a prime substance in relation to ‘here’. It’s a matter of perspective that ignores the construction of the ‘individual’.
The ‘self’ or ‘individual’ is a consolidation process of relational structures that exist regardless of consolidation. This consolidation relies on a) the awareness, connection and collaboration between integrated relational structures; and b) the existence of an overarching relational structure (self-consciousness), in relation to which it is necessarily incomplete.
Quoting Possibility
Having reached some agreement about this and giving it more thought I still have a snag.
Living the ascetic life, living the life of a Buddhist monk or a Christian in a monastery, it seems to me to be a realm separated from the world, where the walls are a boundary. Life inside is sustained by what is given to them. I know some produce food for themselves with gardens and whatever else they may take part in, but their survival is guaranteed by the outside world, which they do not have to contend with. So the problem of life being competition to survive, or in @schopenhauer1 relentless struggle through the day still seems to ring true to me.
So life doesn’t have to be about competition or survival, but for who?
Living is not about living, it is about what you do with your life. I wonder what people, who believe the life is only about trying to continue to live, are doing with their lives? It must be a very boring life. Maybe even depressive? How about doing something with your life so it has some meaning?
Quoting MondoR
Such as?
How about taking up photography and enjoying what you see?
Find a place to live, try to enjoy the food and air, and then have some fun in your life. Even those who are struggling the most, and there are 10s of millions of them, take time out to enjoy time with friends and family.
And what would it’s meaning be?
To learn, to grow, to evolve. That is what we we are all doing.
Photography can do this, eating food, breathing the air?
Of course. We learn from everything we do. Constantly.
How does photography do it?
Quoting MondoR
How do you know that’s the meaning for life?
Photography teaches how to look at the world differently, and when you look at it differently you see me things. You get "new eyes".
The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes. [Proust]
Just observe what everyone is doing.
Quoting MondoR
How?
Quoting MondoR
What is everyone doing?
Learning and evolving (changing). It's called evolution.
By study.
Quoting MondoR
You’ll need to explain that.
Quoting MondoR
So that’s the meaning of life?
One studies photography just like one studies philosophy, and you learn something new.
One does not study photography like one studies philosophy. What do you learn from photography?
Pretty much. We study, we learn, we experiment, we create new things. All of this is happening all of the time, and it is quite enjoyable to learn more about ourselves and the universe we live in.
If you go to take a photograph then you go to a place that already exists. Instead of sitting and being part of it you instead take some photos. Why?
Of course one does. Every skill requires study. There are differences of course, but the process of gradual accumulation of knowledge is the same.
Quoting MondoR
It’s seems to me that you think the meaning to life is just doing things. We study, we learn, we create new things. For what purpose?
To see something in a new way and share this insight we others, if you wish.
Quoting MondoR
I don’t see how doing photography is going to give you any leads into questions about life.
Quoting MondoR
Do you think you need a camera to do this?
Because it is interesting and enjoyable. Ask an astronomer or mathematician about the enjoyment of learning or discovery.. Ask an athlete or a dancer. Or ask me? Really, it's fun! The emotion of fun?
A camera adds additional dimensions.
I can understand that someone might go to another country and take photos of unusual cultures or locations and then that person brings them home to show others how the world is different out there. But that’s not what you’re saying. You’re saying just the act of taking photos gives meaning to life. But I don’t see how.
Quoting MondoR
Can that really be all to the meaning of life? We’re here just to have fun?
Visit a photography forum and observe what they are discussing.
Pretty much. To learn about ourselves and our universe, and have fun doing it. The alternative is boredom and possibly depression.
Quoting MondoR
You might be confusing satisfaction with meaning.
Quoting MondoR
First of all fun is a very subjective term. Secondly we can be happy and unhappy, maybe in equal measure. Does that mean that unhappiness is the meaning of life?
They are the same. Life isn't really that complicated. People enjoy having fun and maybe a good laugh now and then.
Quoting MondoR
Once again boredom and depression are subjective. Not running around doing things is not necessarily boredom and depression.
Quoting MondoR
Fine. Just don’t tell me it’s the meaning of life.
Of course. Everyone has fun in their own way.
Unhappiness gives us happiness. It's cyclical. Without unhappiness, we wouldn't have happiness. Isn't the Universe a wonder?
Quoting MondoR
For some people it’s very complicated, in so many ways.
Quoting MondoR
From who’s point of view?
Well, I just did, but if course you can live any kind of life you choose. I know lots of people who deny themselves fun and get very depressed. It takes lots of effort to keep oneself from having any fun.
Quoting MondoR
I’m not saying fun is not good for you, I’m saying I can’t find any way to see it as the meaning to life.
Then search for your own meaning and I hope you enjoy doing it!
Quoting MondoR
Bingo!
I'd like to change the focus of the question. A life where one is dealing with overcoming the next thing. Is this right to give on behalf of someone else? I'd say no. It is not escapable. So a life where one can escape from any burden, any overcoming of the next thing at any time, maybe. But that is not the case. One must always be dealing with, whether one likes it or not. There is no escape from it.
So I'm just reframing your question. I am not denying there are "good experiences", just that providing someone with dealing with situations, is not worth good experiences. While good experiences are a good thing, being given a sort of "default mode" of having to overcome, deal with, reckon with, etc. is the focus here. Is that right, good, correct, necessary, worth it to bring about on behalf of someone else? Is it necessary to continue? Why? What is the justification other than sometimes good experiences happen too. Surely, that can't be it as to why it is okay. An ideology is perpetuated that people must continue with the survival, comfort, entertainment game and of course the contingent harms that befall everyone.
To demonstrate the political nature of this, let's look at this pandemic. Here we are with a pandemic that kills people at various rates. It is unpredictable whether it will be mild or cause havoc for certain individuals. This is just but ONE thing that people are burdened with and must overcome. Just one example. But the current political idea is that humans must carry forward, continue to breed more people who will experience things similar to this. That is an example of a contingent harm. You can make a clear argument it is also about the necessary component of survival as well. Either way, it is an overcoming. It is a burden. It is having to deal with a situation and get by. Maneuvering around the social, physical, mental aspects of life. But why must people be thrown into this game in the first place? Why must the dealing with game be continued? Clearly an ideology of sorts wins out every time more people are thrown into the game. It is not just an individual thing either. It is institutionalized, culturally encouraged, strengthened.
We are not doing a sufficient job debating the real political ideological underpinnings of throwing more people into existence. That is the political divide, as the other thread is about. Left/right political debates bypass the optimist/pessimist debate of whether this enterprise of living as an embodied person is good, necessary, and moral to provide to another person. Rather, this pandemic should be a major reason to start veering towards upheaving the current default mode of continuing the enterprise. We can stop the dealing with for other people but we don't. We want to make ourselves these heroes or beacons of some sort of mission of humanity. I am going to be reviled for defending the other side of this idea. For providing the pessimistic reasons otherwise. People are going to cast aspersions. Don't be fooled. This is a political debate. The more traction philosophical pessimism gets in any way, the more the optimists will deride the other side with angry, forceful personal attacks and the like. It is human nature to ignore, sublimate, distract, and deny what is the case.
Well, I don’t think that living the ascetic life, or any form of isolation from the world, is the answer. Buddha’s path through life points to the fundamental contradiction of existence/non-existence - it is this that we cannot escape from. To opt for an isolated ascetic life is really just to repeat the mistakes he sought to teach by his example.
Don’t get me wrong - I understand where @schopenhauer1 and yourself are coming from: a life perceived in isolation will always be a pointless struggle for survival, entertainment and/or comfort. If living is your focus, then this rings true.
Society is a manifestation of relational structures as value systems to be tested. If life was all about survival, then we would never feel comfortable in our success; if it was all about entertainment, then with success we would never survive; and if it was all about comfort, then in success we would suffer from boredom. Competition promises to lift us out of an individual, self-serving life, by drawing attention to (or creating the impression of) scarcity in resources, value or capacity in relation to others. In a comfortable life competition provides entertainment; in an active life it offers the illusion of survival; and in a high risk life it promises comfort.
But the way I see it, competition is just an illusion that keeps us where we are. Existence is not about living, and the fact that we are in a position to perceive the pointlessness of this individual striving is what enables us to render our existence - and by reduction, our life - meaningful. The fundamental impetus is not competition, but relation: increasing awareness, connection and collaboration enables us to escape from this pointless striving in a way that competition in life ultimately cannot deliver.
We buy into the apparent scarcity of resources, value or capacity, and it seems so real: every time we relate beyond our sense of self/identity, this impression that we are NOT the only one, but rather ‘one of’ a plurality, hits us where it hurts: my existence is not necessary, after all. It doesn’t matter in itself - either that, or, as @schopenhauer1 argues, it’s the only thing that does, and the illusion is reality after all. Life is not about competition or survival for those who accept the former.
If my individual existence is unnecessary, then all that I am and all that I acquire of resources, capacity and value exists only in relation to others. How I contribute to this bigger picture - to increasing awareness, connection and collaboration - matters regardless of all the potentiality I might acquire in a lifetime (and lose in a moment).