Printable View
Man has a choice / we would not have dissenters in the other case, who have been ascribed "aesthetic" distortions for their time for example/...Are we always competing according to you/there are always values/? Perhaps competition is still natural given the driving forces of recognition from others is natural? After all the best way to acquit a force is to declare it natural...Quote:
Originally Posted by subterranean
Please excuse me, but I don't understand your post. Please elaborate.
Interesting thread.
Someone pointed me here because just yesterday I posted the following thread, entitled "Competition - Human Nature?", on another forum:
“Humans have an innate sense of competition”
You hear this all the time – it has become almost axiomatic.
Get into an argument about Capitalism, this and it will be offered as proof that Socialist and Communist systems will always fail, regardless of how they are implemented and administered.
It seems to be (or at least is claimed to be) at the root of war, religious persecution, consumerism, sports, games and no one seems to question whether or not it is true.
People say that humans simply would not have progressed as far as they have if it weren’t for competition.
Leaving the whole issue of what constitutes “progress” aside for now, I don’t accept so readily that:
a.) Intra-species competition is innate in human beings.
b.) Competition drives progression better than cooperation.
c.) Encouraging competition is what is best for society in general.
“Intra-species competition is innate in human beings.”
Is it innate human nature, or is it fostered and cultivated by the social structures we have built?
The best way to determine this, in my opinion, is to observe children.
People will, of course, point to how children love to play games and how children are possessive over their toys and such, but is that really competition at work?
Children, above all, are driven to experience – to learn by exploring, observing and doing. They are just as keen to play a game that is designed to not have any “winners” or “losers”, just because it is their thirst for knowledge and new experience that is being fed.
They don’t care about challenging OTHERS, they care only about challenging THEMSELVES.
They will sit for hours on end and play a one player game, constantly pushing themselves to achieve for the simple sake of accomplishment.
They don’t know how to compete until we teach them to.
As for not wanting to share, that doesn’t seem to me to rooted in anything but a lack of comprehension that the whole world does not exist for their sake alone.
It takes time for children to develop the sense of empathy, simply because the whole world belongs to them and is there for their own purposes.
I have never met a child who has progressed passed that stage and has realized a sense of self and does not revel in helping others – helping Mom and Dad clean, cook, fix things, take out the garbage – that often fades eventually, but whether and how much it fades is entirely dependent upon external influences.
Humans are a relatively weak, slow, inefficient animal whose only claim to fame and ability to adapt to new environments are our intelligence and social cooperation.
If it weren’t for social cooperation, we would have been extinct a very long time ago.
“Competition drives progression better than cooperation.”
While that may ring true in a certain sense, that is only the case because we have built a system that rewards competition.
Think about this for a second…
Take two groups of ten people each and offer a prize to compete against to get some task done within a month.
If you take the group of twenty and have them cooperate to accomplish the same task, doesn’t it stand to reason that sharing resources, knowledge, experience and work would get the task done faster, more thoroughly and more efficiently?
Advances are driven when different groups, different schools, different nations cooperate, share information, share efforts and strive toward a common goal together.
“Encouraging competition is what is best for society in general.”
Encouraging competition encourages selfish, myopic, and short-sighted actions.
I fail to see how that is beneficial to society, community, the human race as a whole, the environment or anything else.
Aham...sorry...I tend to have difficulties with sentences generally/ Expressing thoughts is somehow more difficult than having thoughts/Quote:
Originally Posted by subterranean
I'll make another attempt:
You mentioned in your explanation recognition as a driving force for competition. So I was asking you whether competition could be in this case natural if we are to accept that this driving force is natural
You can foster and cultivate s.th that is already exiting. But your observations give a valuable perspective...The examples with the children for example are posing interesting questions. How exactly is the co-player transformed to a competitor? What features of the development are indicative of the change that gradually appears?...Threatening imperatives that you would not make much of a bread-winner if your income is not higher than the neighbour or that you need a title to fulfill the requirements of a sucessful person as subterranean proposed?... But in both these cases, man is disposed to act according to threats and what is worse to assume they are the vital foundations of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by one_raven
Doesn't yielding to threats mean their contain is exactly what you are afraid of? In this case - afraid of someone being ahead you...If man yields than perhaps this one of his desires of advancement is natural...
But do you think that fear of someone being ahead of or better than you is an innate trait?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagleheart
I think, rather it is a false fear brought upon by outside forces.
Fear certainly leads to competition.
What draws man to fight is an unfulfilled need, what draws him to compete is the fear that the resources that will fulfil his need are limited.
If man is hungry, he will eat.
If he is hungry and there is limited food, his fear of starvation will force him to fight for food.
If he is hungry, has plenty of food for tomorrow and no fear that he will run out of food, he has no need to compete for it.
Someone in a desert will compete for water.
Someone living beside a constant source of fresh water in a water-rich environment has no need to compete for water.
If you live in an area where the game is limited and other food sources are scarce, you will certainly want to hunt better than the next guy.
If someone is better than you at hunting, but you still have plenty of food and no fear of that food supply diminishing, so what?
No, I do notQuote:
Originally Posted by one_raven
How I see the problem:...Fighting "for" is too often assumed to be unrealizable without fighting "against"...
Unfortunately, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagleheart
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagleheart
Hey, it's ok :).
Well, I'd say it's the value and the presence of other party that create competition/cooperation.
You can get arouse, without the presence of anyone, by imagining things in your head. But can you get competitive if there's no one around? And I'm not sure whether value is a natural thing because it changes (modified or even gone) and it may differ from person to person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by one_raven
I like your examples. And as I posted before, I personally think that competion and cooperation are 2 things that are socially constructed, means that I won't consider doing one or both of these acts until there is other party involved and when both parties give the same value to it. I mean, if I consider being the 1st student in class as something valuable but the other party doesn't, then most likely there won't be any competition.
A very intriguing question, but one that can always be taken multiple ways.
First, we have our definition of natural, which is of or regarding nature, and then without artificial additives.
Thus I say that competion is entirely natural, it exists outside of any additives, regardless of if it an innate quality it was one created by humans with no external aide, unless you consider environment external aide. I realize though that that is not what the question is truly about, still my position remains the same. I say it is a natural characteristic, and one that is instinctual, I look as it this way, just because something is instinctual does not make it necessarily always present. A good example of this would be vegetarians--and I don't mean to insult vegetarians in any way--but the fact is that meat eating is an inherent trait, and if presented with nothing else to eat besides a tender steak, I'd have to say they would choose to eat rather than not. Now this may be the argument in question, if competition is only present under conditions in which it is advantageous. I have to say that it exists outside of this, taking the capitalist system for example, many people meet their basic needs, and yet they still compete. That same example could be said that it is unnatural too though, and that because it exists outside of necessity it is therefore unnatural. I disagree with that notion, for as instinctual as eating is, you still have people who do it far past their own needs. I believe to answer the original question, it is very natural, and there are various ways to consider it as such based on varying semantics. Though I have to proceed with the question; If this were some such utopian society in which there was no need to compete, would we be posing the question is competition unnatural?
Welcome to the forum Rampant...
The validity of this example, though decidedly indisputable, does not determine how we are to assume that competition is natural...Aggression produces crimes in certain conditions and aggression is assumed to be natural, but should the next step be to proclaim the drive for killing natural?..I think we may explain the capitalistic foundations with this same example... Aggression may be natural, but it is evidently designed for our need of an instinct of self-preservation; the degeneration of this aggressive instinct into other forces and hence actions/killing for example/ evidences how the natural itself does not appear to corroborate the naturalness of the actions it provokes...The need to supply the necessities in life may have easily degenerated into capital accumulation- in this way an accepted innate trait/the struggle to meet the needs/ introduces a mode of existence, based on constant competition, which is not necessarily natural...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rampant
But the answer to the question how degeneration is itself occuring is of course unlikely to be given easily...And this again proves how handy we can be with arguments when we explain what question should be answered...but quite impeded when the answer to the question is to be given...
I see what you are getting at, but I am not sure how we establish what is considered natural competitiveness and unnatural competitiveness, it is a very vague subject. Is competing for basic needs the only natural competition, which was derived from necessity, and that competing past the point of meeting basic needs considered a degeneration of the instinctual proclivity to compete? That may be true, but I still believe the need to compete is indeed an innate quality of humans, we have ranks and classes and the like because people are not all equal, and I doubt that those who do not have the given ability to be the best would simply be content with that status even with basic needs met. I think humans have a need and lust for a certain level of esteem; this would cause the person in a lower rank to needlessly compete. Again there is much skepticism to the state of ranks being natural, so perhaps my last statement is a bit of a circular argument. The only way I can precisely answer the question is looking at it semantically, in which case competition is natural, having occurred by way of humans without additives, the environment cannot be considered an additive because it is naturally occurring. In their own environment humans developed the need to compete, thus I agree with the resolution that competitive nature is natural.
People are unequal only because they employ their equality differently...But they have inherent rights, which only make them equal...Differency does not contradict equality I think you will agree; various traits are variously encouraged in different people, but different ranks stem from artificiality because ranks presuppose inequality in rights. Hence competition aroused by rank striving is unnatural, the objective itself/occupying that rank/ is unnatural...Thus I can only conclude/ though making conclusions does not reinforce the idea that the analysis is argumentatively completed - I admit this/can only conclude that the unnaturalness of the objective determines the unnaturalness of the struggle toward it. Given that a large part of competition involves titles and ranks I may safely assume that this competitiveness is not an encoded trait...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rampant
But if ranks are designed to be the means to this esteem this does not make them natural - in this I suppose we agree...But how is competition indispensable to esteem? Having independent merits or being better than others is compulsory for recognition? Being better than others is not a merit in itself, so competition in this case is not to be justified by the desire/ I would even say passion / for recognition...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rampant
I will respond to the original question.............
Yes, I think so.Quote:
Can a specific mode of domestic education of an individual completely stifle an innate characteristic, so as not to appear when the favourable time is set??
Competition like any other trait, innate or otherwise, is something that should be encouraged/cultivated. The supression of competition, such as, a child who has been taught to step aside and let the others win, will destroy the all so improtant trait in that child and it will not grow up to see importance or even the reasoning behind competition. They did not get the oppurtunity to know what sucess feels like or the rewards that come with it.
(like self-esteem)
Domestic education has everything to do with the growth/development of an individual.
Nature or .........? The latter, I think.