Survival of the fittest.

[Arjen]

Pyth,

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

--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.

Do you agree with this?

[Pythagorean]

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.

-

[Arjen]

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]

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.

-

[Doobah47]

Originally Posted by Arjen

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]

Pyth,

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.

Doobah47,

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]

Allright Arjen. Let us then call survival of the fittest a universal in the nominalist sense.

...

[Doobah47]

The terminology is at fault though, surely there are better words to describe such a concept... how about

"continuation of the proactive causes"

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by Pythagorean

Allright Arjen. Let us then call survival of the fittest a universal in the nominalist sense.

...

Pyth,

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,

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]

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.