FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Expect It!





Bluedoll
Synopsis: It is a big cruel fight and has no spirit of humanity in it. My intent is that I do not learn these unfortunate ways.

The philosophy of the fittest is a philosophy for the dying. I see it everywhere, the offensive dominate ruling with a sometimes sly, sometimes cruel hand delivering blows of angry insults without reasonable consideration for other people. Cutting into a heart like vulgar monsters, they are the tough guys, that care nothing about, nor have consideration for common values. They exist here, they exist all over the internet and it sickens me.
I know this is true, for in my heart, my intentions were always to share, to help, if I could, to contribute and to write, oh write to appeal to someone’s senses. Instead of appreciation, or insight into my mistakes - I might make and would indeed for I am only human instead I got contempt, anger, hatred and a disloyal attitude of sarcastic criticism.
This is a philosophy on board for the internet culture to cut and damage - to win with points up and seduce with the venomous poison of un-rightness. In plain words, in this kind of philosophy there is no sense of community, nor loyalty, nor respect, nor love mostly not love and teaches valueless moral techniques. It is a debate of death and has no happy ending.
Do I read, yes I read, why not, for it is a discussion I seek, not a repulsive argument. I have been frequently here in philosophical thoughts and in this dwelling it came upon me, what company I was keeping? Let me not use plagiarism but quote and rewrite some words I recently read (1Thessalonians 5:12) in my own hand.
A letter to the attentive readers, may you have peace.
Now I request you have some regard for those who are working hard and presiding over you and admonish you and give them consideration because of their work. Be peaceable with one another. Also consider this please, to advise the disorderly, speak consolingly to the depressed, support the weak. See to it that no one renders injury for injury to anyone else but always pursue something much better.
This is a clear, simple message, that will produce a successful ending. The philosophy that will be adopted remains the choice of the reader.
deanhills
Bluedoll, I thought "Survival of the Fittest" could be a nice subject for a philosophical debate.

Is it really the fittest who survive? I believe it is usually rather the smartest who survive and not the fittest. The fittest may do battle and bulldoze over the weak. But it is the smartest who really get what they want. They are your quiet minority. They are usually very unassuming, modest and don't have to prove who they are. They stay out of major confrontations, and when they are challenged deal with it in a way that competely impresses through their subtlety. They also pick their battles, and only do battle when they are almost certain of the positive outcome. The fittest are probably the equivalent of warriors, the smartest, leaders.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
Bluedoll, I thought "Survival of the Fittest" could be a nice subject for a philosophical debate.

Is it really the fittest who survive? I believe it is usually rather the smartest who survive and not the fittest. The fittest may do battle and bulldoze over the weak. But it is the smartest who really get what they want. They are your quiet minority. They are usually very unassuming, modest and don't have to prove who they are. They stay out of major confrontations, and when they are challenged deal with it in a way that competely impresses through their subtlety. They also pick their battles, and only do battle when they are almost certain of the positive outcome. The fittest are probably the equivalent of warriors, the smartest, leaders.


The use of the word fittest was never intended to imply "strongest" or "fastest" or similar words describing physical attributes (although the phrase can certainly be applied to that if specifically desired). It seems to be a common misconception when people hear the phrase, and unfortunately it's a misconception that's been spread even by some biology teachers in my own experiences.

The word "fittest" was intended to be an overarching word that partly described the mechanism of natural selection: the individuals (perhaps species would be more correct) who were most adequately adapted to their environment would be the individuals (species) who survived and passed on their genes the most often. The word fittest wasn't used in a way that limited its meaning to physical fitness. When the phrase is used, the meaning of it is determined by the context of what type of environment you're discussing. It could mean strongest or fastest, but it could also mean smartest or most determined. It could mean the individuals who are most skilled at finding food or the individuals most adept at avoiding enemies.

It could mean many things, provided this meaning stays within the realm of: characteristics (adaptations) that make one individual superior to another individual in terms of surviving in a specific environment.

That is my understanding at least.
Ankhanu
Thanks, lil, I was just about to address this topic. You covered it fairly well, but I'll make a small correction:

"It could mean many things, provided this meaning stays within the realm of: characteristics (adaptations) that make one individual superior to another individual in terms of surviving and reproducing in a specific environment."

Fitness is ALL about reproduction. Without producing offspring, a strong and otherwise successful individual has 0 fitness. "Weak" individuals who produce many offspring are more fit than powerful individuals producing few.


Those who assert that "survival of the fittest" encourages a dog-eat-dog world, amorality and the like simply don't have a clue what they're talking about and are taking the phrase out of context. Unfortunately this covers most people who like to use it Razz
Twotone
On he internet or in real life, it is always smarter to"walk away and live to fight another day" than to keep running into brick walls of ignorance and lose yout fitness !

I like your reply Deanhills
Bluedoll
A parallel can be drawn between the philosophy of many internet users and the philosophy of Herbert Spencer.
Herbert Spencer an English philosopher first coined the phrase survival of the fittest after reading Charles Darwin's - On the Origin of Species.
Not to be confused with natural selection, (better suited to be discussed in the science section) he wrote philosophy which could substitute for conventional religious faith at that time.
He thought that the end point of the evolutionary process would result in the creation of a perfect man. However, for evolution to produce the perfect race, it was necessary for present and future generations to experience consequential conduct.
Absolute Ethics which drummed up a scientifically-grounded moral system attempted to substitute for spiritually-based integrity. In clear words, leave God out of this equation. Spencer's last years were characterized by a collapse of his initial optimism, replaced instead by a pessimism regarding the future of mankind.
The bible however though not a philosophy book demonstrates that though man is not perfect, forgiveness and love plus a willingness to understand God's ways will produce a much better world.
Personally my philosophy would agree with the biblical view both in life and interactive use on the internet which unfortunately many users may not be wishing to share.
liljp617
Ankhanu wrote:
Thanks, lil, I was just about to address this topic. You covered it fairly well, but I'll make a small correction:

"It could mean many things, provided this meaning stays within the realm of: characteristics (adaptations) that make one individual superior to another individual in terms of surviving and reproducing in a specific environment."

Fitness is ALL about reproduction. Without producing offspring, a strong and otherwise successful individual has 0 fitness. "Weak" individuals who produce many offspring are more fit than powerful individuals producing few.


Yep, that would be a good point of emphasis Wink I brushed it a little in talking about passing on genes, but more emphasis and clarification on the point never hurts.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
Those who assert that "survival of the fittest" encourages a dog-eat-dog world, amorality and the like simply don't have a clue what they're talking about and are taking the phrase out of context. Unfortunately this covers most people who like to use it Razz
Thanks liljp617 and Ankhanu. So the phrase is strictly used in a Darwin biological context only and I get that. But I rarely see Darwinians or evolutionists using these words, I thought they mostly used "natural selection" for what you described. The term "survival of the fittest", as you have already indicated, could easily be misinterpreted?

Refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
A parallel can be drawn between the philosophy of many internet users and the philosophy of Herbert Spencer.
Herbert Spencer an English philosopher first coined the phrase survival of the fittest after reading Charles Darwin's - On the Origin of Species.
Not to be confused with natural selection, (better suited to be discussed in the science section) he wrote philosophy which could substitute for conventional religious faith at that time.
He thought that the end point of the evolutionary process would result in the creation of a perfect man. However, for evolution to produce the perfect race, it was necessary for present and future generations to experience consequential conduct.
Spencer misunderstood evolution unfortunately. This was in the days before genetics and Spencer still had Lamarkian misconceptions - particularly the myth of 'use inheritance' which led him to believe that people could be changed just by altering their actions, and that these changes would be passed on to the next generation.
Quote:
Absolute Ethics which drummed up a scientifically-grounded moral system attempted to substitute for spiritually-based integrity. In clear words, leave God out of this equation. Spencer's last years were characterized by a collapse of his initial optimism, replaced instead by a pessimism regarding the future of mankind.
Like many people he became more conservative with age.
Quote:
The bible however though not a philosophy book demonstrates that though man is not perfect, forgiveness and love plus a willingness to understand God's ways will produce a much better world.
No it doesn't. The bible has no realistic model of what a society based on those principles would look like. It 'demonstrates' nothing, it merely asserts.
In fact we have a pretty good notion of what such a world would look like - Europe from the time of Constantine to the renaissance is an illustration. Not a world I would like to see return and for good reason generally known as the 'dark ages'.
c'tair
Bikerman wrote:
No it doesn't. The bible has no realistic model of what a society based on those principles would look like. It 'demonstrates' nothing, it merely asserts.
In fact we have a pretty good notion of what such a world would look like - Europe from the time of Constantine to the renaissance is an illustration. Not a world I would like to see return and for good reason generally known as the 'dark ages'.


But..but...but! At least back then we didn't have muslims and homosexuals all over the place! And women knew their place! And you could also BUY your sins off! How can you even call that the dark ages when those examples I listed above clearly show that those were the times of the pinnacle of human closeness to god!

/satire Razz

It always amazed me how people would talk about the peace and love message of Christ, yet they could never answer me why, under hard catholic rule of Europe for about a thousand years, there was neither love nor peace?
Bluedoll
@c'tair
I love the satire if I can be permitted to speak, I will also add that under hard catholic rule, more satire, there was indeed questionable peace, total agreement.
Seriously though, to partly answer your long search through history for peace, there is but alas sadly some but difficult to find. Jesus did not establish a world of peace nor said he was doing so or there would be peace, instead we have what we have now, but this fact does not degrade the message of peace. The past is the past where the good messages were ignored or misapplied. There can be peace, we just have to want it. How that comes about is another question.
@bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbikerman
Is it possible there can be peace? I have to appreciate your knowledge, your positive traits which you consistently display in your quality posts. You are one smart man and I a special woman.
In regards to the bible and more in regards to the future I will say the future is yet unwritten, where we can fill a void with something more worthy.
Regarding models, plans, predictions and the like there are profits only for what we wish to invest.
Consider this. If you went to a lecture and received even only one good idea or one good thought that would help you build your brand new world - would you not think going to the lecture was worth the effort regardless of what side you were on?
I am not sure all of what the future holds but perhaps it is possible that scientists may very well still have work to do and God will not be so much of a mystery.
Bikerman
Quote:
If you went to a lecture and received even only one good idea or one good thought that would help you build your brand new world - would you not think going to the lecture was worth the effort regardless of what side you were on?

Well, firstly I am not trying to build a new world. Leaving that to one side then it would depend. If I went to a lecture that had, as you say, one good idea, but also contained a lot of misinformation and inaccurate information then I might well consider it a poor use of time. It would depend on how good and how unique the idea was.

The central notion that many Christians tell me is at the 'heart' of their religion is what we generally call the Golden Rule - treat others as you would have them treat you is one way of phrasing it. The problem is that much of the bible certainly does not emphasise this principle - most of the Old Testament is in direct contravention of this rule and much of the new Testament was aimed at a select audience (Jews). Nor is this principle/rule unique to Christianity. Versions of the Golden Rule existed long before the bible and exist in many other relions, as well as in secular humanism.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
Those who assert that "survival of the fittest" encourages a dog-eat-dog world, amorality and the like simply don't have a clue what they're talking about and are taking the phrase out of context. Unfortunately this covers most people who like to use it Razz
Thanks liljp617 and Ankhanu. So the phrase is strictly used in a Darwin biological context only and I get that. But I rarely see Darwinians or evolutionists using these words, I thought they mostly used "natural selection" for what you described. The term "survival of the fittest", as you have already indicated, could easily be misinterpreted?

Refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest


To my knowledge, the word was first used in the context of describing Darwin's theory. I'm not sure it was actually coined by Darwin, though he described the concept quite clearly. I suppose you could use the phrase in other areas (such as in describing businesses in a capitalist environment), but its meaning would obviously have to be altered slightly. I can't make an official analysis on how often it's used in the field of biology...I don't hear it too often, but in my view that's because natural selection encompasses the phrase and, as we see, there are often misconceptions on what the phrase means.
Bikerman
addendum - Coined by Herbert Spencer in 1864
Bluedoll
@Chris
Ok, putting aside a lecture then, please consider just this forum in the present tense. I think, you must see something of value or you wouldn’t be here, certainly would not just be exercising keystrokes. What I do not understand completely is why the interest in the bible if you have such a low estimation of value for it?
This could be incorrect but I can assume your interest in the bible is because you like to test your understanding, by debating, so to confirm your belief in something else, thereby solidifying those beliefs. Is this correct? I would think that would be a rational method by the way, it is a question not construed to be cunning. I am going to presume the answer is yes.
The alternative reason for discussing something you have no keen interest in would be to simply taunt and debate for the pleasure of some devious excitement? I hope not.

If, however you are testing your knowledge then it is it possible that you would consider in some far out place, in the recesses of the outer limits of deep space or in the vague reaches on some kind of atomic level there might possibly be something you were unawares of? Something you missed, a possibility? In this case, I would be talking to a reasonable man, with an open mind for possibilities (even if they are very very miniscule) and I should want to continue a dialogue not with the intention of winning over, conversion or for gain of any dimension but because it simply makes sense to discuss something with someone who does not have a closed mind, for that then would be an exercise in sterility.
I am asking, is communication with you Chris, a waste of my precious time or is there hope of a little compromise? Of course you can always say that is my decision or that is really my responsibility to prove however can you please try to see past this once to see my logic and consideration. I am merely asking so to understand you better.

For the benefit of anyone, who has an interest for discussion, of the possibility, that the bible does have valuable information, one could state that it need not emphasis one common theme, as it is a book of many books and not a book specific to any particular style. It is unique in so many ways and not similar to other reads. If one idea “the golden rule” is presented and received by the reader then the purpose is completed. Writings do take place over a long time span so common principal’s presented within or anywhere outside the bible need not be a controversial issue for copyright infringement is not enforced but the information is free and available for use.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
@Chris
Ok, putting aside a lecture then, please consider just this forum in the present tense. I think, you must see something of value or you wouldn’t be here, certainly would not just be exercising keystrokes. What I do not understand completely is why the interest in the bible if you have such a low estimation of value for it?
Oh no, I quite like the Bible - I have several copies, including a Guttenberg copy. What I don't like is people reading it as some history document rather than a collection of stories.
Quote:
This could be incorrect but I can assume your interest in the bible is because you like to test your understanding, by debating, so to confirm your belief in something else, thereby solidifying those beliefs. Is this correct? I would think that would be a rational method by the way, it is a question not construed to be cunning. I am going to presume the answer is yes.
The alternative reason for discussing something you have no keen interest in would be to simply taunt and debate for the pleasure of some devious excitement? I hope not.
Neither is exactly right
My non-belief in God(s) is fairly well founded and I don't really need confirmation or affirmation to maintain it.
The main reason I post on these forums is because:
a) I don't like the forum being used for propogandising ANY view. If people wish to prostelytise a particular religion or viewpoint then I believe they should provide some evidence for it. There are quite a few young and impressionable readers out there.
b) I like to be proved wrong as I have said previously, because it means I've learned something new. I would love to see a convincing argument by a theist in the forums and I live in hope.
Quote:
If, however you are testing your knowledge then it is it possible that you would consider in some far out place, in the recesses of the outer limits of deep space or in the vague reaches on some kind of atomic level there might possibly be something you were unawares of? Something you missed, a possibility? In this case, I would be talking to a reasonable man, with an open mind for possibilities (even if they are very very miniscule) and I should want to continue a dialogue not with the intention of winning over, conversion or for gain of any dimension but because it simply makes sense to discuss something with someone who does not have a closed mind, for that then would be an exercise in sterility.
Absolutely. There is more than a miniscule chance that i could be wrong - see reason b) above.
Quote:
I am asking, is communication with you Chris, a waste of my precious time or is there hope of a little compromise? Of course you can always say that is my decision or that is really my responsibility to prove however can you please try to see past this once to see my logic and consideration. I am merely asking so to understand you better.
Compromise is tricky - I'm not sure how it could apply. I can certainly be convinced that a point of view is valid, or at least logically defensible. I could even be persuaded that there IS a God, since it is my nature to seek evidence and accept what the evidence says. I would say it is unlikely, but certainly not out of the question. Compromise, however, seems to indicate that I should shift my current position without such evidence or logical argument - that I cannot do.
Quote:
For the benefit of anyone, who has an interest for discussion, of the possibility, that the bible does have valuable information, one could state that it need not emphasis one common theme, as it is a book of many books and not a book specific to any particular style. It is unique in so many ways and not similar to other reads. If one idea “the golden rule” is presented and received by the reader then the purpose is completed. Writings do take place over a long time span so common principal’s presented within or anywhere outside the bible need not be a controversial issue for copyright infringement is not enforced but the information is free and available for use.
Ahh, now that I can agree with, at least in part. Certainly the bible contains much information that was (and still is) useful. The Hebrew bible is basically a manual on how to be a Jew. It contains the creation myth, the rules and regulations of the religion, the folk history and the common shared beliefs and practices.
The New testament is more problematic. It purports to contain a historical account of Jesus, but I don't believe that is the case. If it is taken, like the OT, as parable/metaphor then yes, I would accept that it has some things worth reading contained in it. The problem comes when people insist on reading both the OT and NT as some sort of documentary or history book. That is very dodgy in my eyes because the only way to maintain that fiction is to reject science, almost completely. Such rejection is more than an individual trajedy because part of the Christian message is to spread the word - so it therefore impacts on me and everyone else.
agbor
I will always respect the words of the bible... i have studied the bible and heared the word of God so much that not believing will be killing yourself. these words spoken have changed many lives in different part of the world.... oh what a mighty we serve. just put your faith in christ that problem will just live you without a struggle. i love you all.
Bikerman
The words have indeed changed many lives in the world over history. They have been responsible for bloody wars and atrocity in every century that I can think over the last two millenia.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
The words have indeed changed many lives in the world over history. They have been responsible for bloody wars and atrocity in every century that I can think over the last two millenia.

Changed both negatively and positively, of course... as most change-inducing things do.
How much of each? That would be a matter of long debate, but it's sure that both are present.
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
The words have indeed changed many lives in the world over history. They have been responsible for bloody wars and atrocity in every century that I can think over the last two millenia.

Changed both negatively and positively, of course... as most change-inducing things do.
How much of each? That would be a matter of long debate, but it's sure that both are present.

Can a delusional belief system ever said to be positive? An interesting question....

(Of course I am begging the question, but IF it is delusional, then could it ever be said to be positive?)
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:

(Of course I am begging the question, but IF it is delusional, then could it ever be said to be positive?)

Yes, in the right circumstances, a delusion could cause positive changes.

...And you must remember, not everyone considers it delusional, so not everyone would consider it automatically negative, even if delusions were always negative.
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:

(Of course I am begging the question, but IF it is delusional, then could it ever be said to be positive?)

Yes, in the right circumstances, a delusion could cause positive changes.
So the end justifies the means, and truth is NOT always desirable? Really?

(I'm aware that not everyone thinks it is delusional - hence the brackets in my last post)...
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
Can a delusional belief system ever said to be positive?

No.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
So the end justifies the means, and truth is NOT always desirable? Really?

No, you'll notice I said that it could have positive results... This does not 'justify the means'.

If a lie can get people to donate food to a charity, for example, this does not justify the lie, but it still had positive results.
Likewise, the US war in Iraq may eventually have positive results, but I doubt this could justify the means.
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
So the end justifies the means, and truth is NOT always desirable? Really?

No, you'll notice I said that it could have positive results... This does not 'justify the means'.

If a lie can get people to donate food to a charity, for example, this does not justify the lie, but it still had positive results.
Likewise, the US war in Iraq may eventually have positive results, but I doubt this could justify the means.
OK, if you are talking about specific outcomes rather than an overall 'positive' then that obviously holds, as it does for most actions/systems. It doesn't speak against the basic proposition that religion doesn't necessarily change lives positively at all.
Indi
ocalhoun wrote:
If a lie can get people to donate food to a charity, for example, this does not justify the lie, but it still had positive results.
Likewise, the US war in Iraq may eventually have positive results, but I doubt this could justify the means.

Just because something can have positive results does not make it a positive thing. A rape victim may become pregnant from the rape, and give birth to a great person... was the rape okay then? Of course not.

Religion can have positive results, sure, but does that outweigh the negative results? Hardly. Whatever good religion does can be done just as well with a humanist belief system, without any need for irrationality or the supernatural.

Can those positive results not be replicated without religion? Hardly. People are just as capable of doing as much good without religion as they are with it.

A great war may lead to a great peace, but if the same peace could have been obtained simply by talking beforehand without the war, then the war has no real good to it, even though it did positive things.

A delusion is an even more special case, because a delusion is a disconnect from reality. If a delusion produces positive effects in reality, it is not because of any relationship between the two... because there is none... it's just a lucky fluke.
ocalhoun
Indi wrote:

Religion can have positive results, sure, but does that outweigh the negative results? Hardly.

Did I claim otherwise?
agbor
life is a book,
Each day is a new page.
may ur book be a bestseller
with much adventures
to tell and lessons 2 learn wit tales of good deeds to remember.
agbor
lets keep our faith.
lets keep our mind.
lets keep our goals.
lets keep what keeps us together.
Bikerman
Quote:
lets keep our faith.
lets keep our mind.
lets keep our goals.
lets keep what keeps us together.

So you think faith keeps people together? I beg to differ - there are few things which have more divided mankind than religious conviction.
LittleBlackKitten
For once, I agree with you, Chris. Faith devides and destroys, it creates intolerance, hate, and confusion, as does religion. There will be no balance as long as more than one point of belief exists.
Bikerman
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
For once, I agree with you, Chris. Faith devides and destroys, it creates intolerance, hate, and confusion, as does religion. There will be no balance as long as more than one point of belief exists.

Well, by definition there can be no balance without more than one point of belief. More seriously though, no religion is going to 'win over' the entire population so there will always be multiple viewpoints.
Even if we do grant some impossible future where Christianity DOES 'defeat' all other religions, then that wouldn't be the end of it. Some of the most bitter division and fighting has been between Christians - check the Protestant reformation and the resulting wars in Europe.
watersoul
Bikerman wrote:
check the Protestant reformation and the resulting wars in Europe.

...and the continuing violence in the UK & Ireland, although I'd say these days it's probably more of a contrived religious mask for land/territory or football hooligan issues.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.