1
   

Survival of the fittest.

 
 
Arjen
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 02:54 am
@Pythagorean,
Pyth, Smile

I am still building my case. You pointed out in your first post:

Quote:

--My main point is this: if you believe in god and the metaphysical good then survival of the fittest is void. But if you believe in science alone then there we are left with no fundamental theory which can practically prevent the "abuses of power" on the part of societies and individuals.

I am stating that since science is used as a rulebase to decide who is the fittest, one can also use religion as a rulebase. Both would take the same place in the question. I am not making any comments about the dependability of the judgement though. It is merely about coming to the judgement. Smile

Do you agree with this?
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2008 12:21 am
@Arjen,
I see. Then, yes Arjen, one can certainly use religion as a rulebase. Now I am interested to see where you are going with this. Smile

-
Arjen
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2008 02:59 am
@Pythagorean,
We have now established that since we need a rulebase to decide if something fits a certain bill that certain bill has no physical representattion; it is a predicate that we conclude (based on our rulebase) is appropriate for our something (in our case a being or species). Because this is so we must conclude that this predicate (in our query "fittest") must therefore be a universal.

Are we in agreement on this as well?
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2008 07:49 pm
@Arjen,
Survival of the fittest describes a theory of how men act. I don't know for sure if, as a theory, it could be rightly called a universal because universals are metaphysical sources of existence itself and men are not. So I will say no Arjen, it cannot be a universal.

-
0 Replies
 
Doobah47
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 06:13 am
@Arjen,
Arjen wrote:
We have now established that since we need a rulebase to decide if something fits a certain bill that certain bill has no physical representattion; it is a predicate that we conclude (based on our rulebase) is appropriate for our something (in our case a being or species). Because this is so we must conclude that this predicate (in our query "fittest") must therefore be a universal.

Are we in agreement on this as well?


I don't think I can really accept what you've said. In my mind there are two predicates: 'survival' as well as 'fittest'. Neither do I believe that either could ever be considered a 'universal'.

Survival could mean anything; a dying man could tell a secret to his grandson, in this case a part of the man has survived (or 2+ parts).

However, I might accept that 'fittest' could be considered universal - in that if somebody is fit enough to complete action x, when x corresponds to survival, then they could have survived. However, in this instance the person might be capable of x and not commit to x, thus not surviving - I'm not sure whether you could say that this demonstrates that the person is unfit, or whether it demonstrates innocent choice (ie they chose not to survive, regardless of the common desire to survive; so the choice 'death' is not a symptom of ill health but actually the 'fittest' choice).
Arjen
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2008 11:18 am
@Doobah47,
Pyth, Smile

Perhaps you should read Ockham's explanation of universal. I know there are more theories on it, but I am referring to his theory. It had nothing to do with theories of existance in the sense that you mean. I would like to know if you aagree with me in the sense of Ockham's universals. Smile

Doobah47, Smile

The discussion has taken a different turn. We have come to the conclusion that all predicates such as "fittest" are a posteriori and are based on the fact that a being (or species) exists (where others no longer exist). Being "fit(test)" therefore is not an action by any being; it is a "title" so to speak. Arguments on what action would be considered "fit(test)" seem out of contaxt.

Your argument reminded me of this quote by the way:

"It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles."
~Niccolo Machiavelli.
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 03:30 am
@Arjen,
Allright Arjen. Let us then call survival of the fittest a universal in the nominalist sense.

...
Doobah47
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 07:53 am
@Pythagorean,
The terminology is at fault though, surely there are better words to describe such a concept... how about

"continuation of the proactive causes"
0 Replies
 
Arjen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 09:30 am
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:
Allright Arjen. Let us then call survival of the fittest a universal in the nominalist sense.

...

Pyth, Smile

Although I think that nominalists are a bit much I do think that when speaking of universals nominalism is a nice way of viewing things. I think that whenever one uses words to indicate groups such words are only thought objects and have no bearing on reality seeing as there is no object that it refers to. It has grounds only in metaphyscs (I use the word metaphysics as "reason" because that is the one fac tor all definitions of metaphyscis have in common).

Are you with me on this?

Doobah, Smile

I think what I am saying to Pyth goes for you too. I am not after definitions; I am showing that it is an a posteriri predication which in itself has no grounds in reality; but is a thought object alone.
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 12:04 am
@Arjen,
Arjen,

Are we now to discuss the merits of nominalism and metaphysical forms? I think it would be a good discussion and I am glad that you got me to read that piece by Ockham, which was fascinating.

But I'm a little lost as to how survival of the fittest relates to it. Very Happy
Arjen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 10:51 am
@Pythagorean,
Pyth, Smile

I am glad you liked Ockham. I liked it a lot too. Perhaps a discussion on it would be nice, if you are willing.

The relevence of Ockham is that it shows that "survival of the fittest" is a universal and has nothing to do with what in reality takes place. It even is an a posteriori though object. Thereby it is proven that such a thing has nothing to do with nature-an-sich, nor with any "state of nature", unless such a state would be defined as not related to the way things take place in nature.

Very Happy
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 03:56 am
@Arjen,
Arjen,

That would imply that no one concept can encompass any plurality of other sub-concepts or individuals, which is absurd. For example, since we may justly consider mankind to be a species of being then the concept mankind must have at least some validity and therefore some explanatory power. Furthermore, I think you are giving Ockham's theory too much leeway. I do not think that if it were rightly construed that it would not rule out the categorization of any plurality of individuals as falling within the purview of one concept (or "intention" of the soul).

I believe you are misapplying the case for nominalism and I believe further that such a case merely applies to metaphysical entities and not formal categories such as species and logical concepts.



--
Arjen
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 04:47 am
@Pythagorean,
I think we should discuss universals in the Ockham topic and I think we need a new metaphysical topic because I think your need to adjust your definitions. After that we should return here to re-discuss my previous statements.

How about that?
Pythagorean
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 May, 2008 10:40 pm
@Arjen,
Yes, Arjen. That sounds good. I will take time to slowly re-read Ockham and will think about it some more. And then, after our discussions there, like you say, we can get back to settle this topic afterwards.
Smile
Arjen
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2008 02:25 am
@Pythagorean,
I like that you are picking up this glove Pyth for I have only just begun. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/23/2024 at 05:54:42