Is competition natural?

My answer to this question has been positive ever since the time I have been able to link the words properly...However in the light of some persuasive arguments of one of my friends, I am inclined to review it at least if not to accept it readily/ which took him some months to achieve/...And I thought I may introduce it as a topic...
If in a considerable number of people competition is lacking even in conditions, carefully prepared to provoke the expression of competitive traits, that are supposed to be natural- does it prove anything? Keep in mind that regional psychological accomodations cannot account for it, I am talking about scattered groups-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? What is the fault of competition- that it is too often equated with self-preservation or that it stands in the way of our ennobling the modern man?
Could it be that competition is present as a forced phenomenon only?...Positive answer to the question maybe somewhat economically-threatening? Now what are we to do with an economically dependent world with economically independent minds...

Interesting question. Although I'm not sure that I fully understand it.

The first part seems to set up a senario. There are a considerable number of people living in conditions that foster competitive behaviour. Competitive behaviour is considered to be "natural." However, competitive behaviour is lacking. The question then becomes: Is competitive behaviour actually natural?

"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?" I think that it depends largely upon the characteristic. Education has some sway certainly over the human mind and make up, but that it can alter the natural way of things seems open to doubt.

"Could it be that competition is present as a forced phenomenon only?" This is possible given enough evidence.

Here is my question. If competition is a forced phenomenon only and so brought about by the effects of education, what innate characteristic is it overpowering?

Anyhow if I've misread please set it right =) Cheers!

Welcome to the forum Acolyte
By forced competition I meant, artificially provoked in people who are somehow disadvantaged, whose striving to overwhelm the disadvantages is alleged competition, but the question still remains if anyone could force any principally non-existent mode of behaviour. No, not really- so.. there is either competition only too inherent or there is twisting of definitions...Today self-sufficient rural peasants in Bulgaria have somehow competitive approach on some obscure grounds according to the agricultural surveys, but this is not the case. It is economically lacking and highly probable to be lacking in their personal matters too. The innate characteristic I was refering to was exactly competition

very interesting point about economical disadvantage leading to competition(if i read correctly). Perhaps all types of disadvantage are what give way to competition? An instinctive urge to fight against others, and getting a bit Darwinian here, place yourself in as high of ranks as possible in a more relative perspective of Survival of the Fittest? Or to be more specific, as when we as a species began we were often exposed to limited food supply, shelter, etc. and needed to "compete" to have all of our needs met. I think i will settle with the idea that disadvantage(the levels of serverity of disadvatnage may differ between individuals) may be what evokes competition but it is a trait embedded into everyone's Ego. So when it is neccesary or practical to be competitive, all would succumb to it.

The question:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dramasno6t

Perhaps all types of disadvantage are what give way to competition?

---

The answer:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dramasno6t

often exposed to limited food supply, shelter, etc. and needed to "compete" to have all of our needs met.

---

Does disadvantage provoke competition that is innate or we are throwing men on the verge of poverty, letting him struggle for subsistence and then what is self-preservation is declared competition? How natural is to present a man with unquestionable principles of conquering to obtain food rather than cooperating when opportunities to do it only by yourself are insufficient?
I speak of disadvantages that preclude the meeting of the basic human needs , ranks do not dwell on this ground...Still the will to power is a considerable argument in favour of innate competitive approach and from it comes the major difficulty of introducing our new refined man, devoid of any instinctual desire to subjugate his fellowmen...

Self preservation could be seen as competition. Stuggling to survive in the desert, man competing against nature. Preserving your sanity under emotional strain, man competing against himself. Who is this "we" you speak of also? Originally humans didnt limit eachothers food and shelter. They saw what was there and fought for their fair share. And some fought for more. I would think power competition and basic needs would be interlinked. Originally having the ability to fulfill basic needs was enough to give one power, because there was not much else to empower people. Basic needs were all they had, strived for, and competed for. I'm interested in your argument though, you seem to portray competition as negative, what alternatives would you suggest for the earlier humans to have gained their needs when times were rough?

Ballanced power, in which no one overwhelms the other in any endeavour is not empowering people, because the power in the case is only a means- fulfilling basic needs is an objective not directed by the eyes of the conqueror- these hypotetical non-competitive people are not seeing man as a factor to be subdued, but as a comrade striving to achieve the same ends, their objective is the fulfilment of needs itself and as long as scarcity is not evident they have no reason to be conquerors, but would live peacefully in cooperation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dramasno6t

what alternatives would you suggest for the earlier humans to have gained their needs when times were rough?

---

We are said to live in deteriorated conditions-so suitable ones would have had to exist from which to appear deteriorated. Why were the times rough when suitable conditions were providing basic necessities? Perhaps competition is a modern phenomenon and civilization is proffering humans but no humanity...I am thinking about this/and wondering how harmful to mankind Niezsche would have deemed the title of the thread/

Balance of power doesnt negate the existence of competition, in fact it confirms it. The same impulse that before led to struggling for food, shelter, etc. enters today when those basic needs are satisfied.You havent mentioned the competition of ideas, the history of scientific thoguht shows the neccesity of competition. Without various philosophers, scientists, and writers competiting agasint eachtother with clashes of ideas and theories, we would not have all the wonderful ideas of today. And perhaps not even your beloved Niezsche

Why is it one or the other? I believe there are times and conditions were humans cooperate and there are times and conditions where humans compete. Society does best when it set up the conditions where competition to advantaages and cooperation leads to other advantages. In summary, both are natural.

No, competition and cooperation are not natural. They are socially constructed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by subterranean

No, competition and cooperation are not natural. They are socially constructed.

---

That is an interesting statement, Sub. Can you elaborate?

Are we arriving at the point when every struggle will represent competition, dramasno6t? The history of ideas especially displays the fact that if humans were driven by the impulse to be better than others and not by that of improvement of society in general, we would still be in the transitional period in which powerful ideas/powerful for various random reasons and perhaps the advantage of the moment/ were gaining momentus? If the driving force was competition, then we must question the objective of the introducers of these ideas-man would compete man for the ideas to be powerful, just with the same governmental approach as in other spheres, not because of ideas themselves as a means for development. I do not equate any struggle, regardless of objective with competition, exactly because the objective determines if it is mere competition. If we assume that when some Africans are struggling to escape the tents in favour of some more 21-century flat they are competitive, then I am shifting my position. But remember I do not still take any of these positions for myself, I want to see how the conversation would progress with a defender of the unnatural competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dramasno6t

And perhaps not even your beloved Niezsche

---

Now, you are particularly uninformed of my tender feelings toward Niezsche

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by subterranean

No, competition and cooperation are not natural. They are socially constructed.

---

?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eagleheart

?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

That is an interesting statement, Sub. Can you elaborate?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster

Etymology of compete: Late Latin competere to seek together, from Latin, to come together, agree, be suitable, from com- + petere to go to, seek --

---

I was just thinking, if my mother never told me that there's only one 1st rank yet there are 30 students in the class (and that she promised to buy me new toys if I became 1#), would I study that hard to be the first? Didn't I consider being the 1st student in class as a very important thing only after my mother said that I must fight the rest 29 students to be the best or only after I see that the teacher plays favorite and give great prizes to the best student?

Would I compete with myself if there's only me in the room?

On a different note, my mom never really told me that when I'm hugry, I should eat. Somehow I learnt that since I was a baby. There's no outside factor that construct that ability (that I need to start looking for food when I'm starving) within me.

IMHO, among a bunch of fools, a smart lad would never thought about competition. Only when he is surrounded by people of the same kind that he'd tought about striving to beat the others. This reminds me of this saying that me and my friends used to say in our classes about the international politics in Asia Pacific, "if you can't beat Japan, join Japan".

But I'm just a registered babbler, hence I might be wrong ;).

Here is another story:

Stuck thirty people in impregnable four walls, make only a tiny opening in the window for the air to come in, watch them running to the opening and then you can readily call them competive...

No, you're talking about life and death there. If there's only you in that room, wouldn't you still go to the tiny window in order to breath more freely?

Competition is there because there's reward or gain involved.. prizes, recognizition, acknowledgement from other people. You call beauty peagant as a natural thing? I think it's only after society put values on something that people will start competing for it.