Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:I guess you never heard of Darwin, huh?

Sure and read his books, something you've obviously not done. But LMFAO that an absolute fool(your words) of a godbotherer brings this to the table, cognitive dissonance obviously holds no meaning for you.

Darwin's theory was obviously somewhat defective in that the concept of survival of the fittest didn't take somebody like you into consideration.

bobevenson wrote:Question: Socialism -- what has gone wrong?
Answer: Not understanding human nature.

I don't think anyone is entirely sure what "human nature" is. Suffice to say there are tendencies among many different people to engage in many different behaviors.

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Question: Socialism -- what has gone wrong?
Answer: Not understanding human nature.

I don't think anyone is entirely sure what "human nature" is. Suffice to say there are many different tendencies among many different people to engage in many different behaviors.

Well, what I meant, of course, is that capitalism, unlike like socialism, recognizes that people are basically interested in themselves as opposed to others, on a day-to-day basis.

bobevenson wrote:Darwin's theory was obviously somewhat defective in that the concept of survival of the fittest didn't take somebody like you into consideration.

Again, you've obviously not read his book and use the concept of 'survival of the fittest' to fit with your godbothering notions.

How do you reconcile your 'God' with Darwin's ideas?

Also, I appear to meet his criteria of 'survival of the fittest' as I have reproduced, have you?

bobevenson wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Question: Socialism -- what has gone wrong?
Answer: Not understanding human nature.

I don't think anyone is entirely sure what "human nature" is. Suffice to say there are many different tendencies among many different people to engage in many different behaviors.

Well, what I meant, of course, is that capitalism, unlike like socialism, recognizes that people are basically interested in themselves as opposed to others, on a day-to-day basis.

People are interested in themselves and their loved ones to a large extent. However, when people come together they are forced to interact with each other. It's not clear to me how socialism doesn't recognize that people are interested in themselves in any way fundamentally inferior to that of capitalism. For example under capitalism a single person can come to own the entire productive means of a community. That's in the interest of the single person but may not be in the interest of the rest of the community.

bobevenson wrote:Question: Socialism -- what has gone wrong?
Answer: Not understanding human nature.

Gary:

Have you ever considered the possibility that you are insane?

bobevenson wrote: Darwin's theory was obviously somewhat defective in that the concept of survival of the fittest didn't take somebody like you into consideration.

The so-called "survival of the fittest" rubric is a phrase which was never used by Darwin and is indeed a completely wrong-headed way to interpret evolutionary theory.

Melchior wrote:Gary:

Have you ever considered the possibility that you are insane?

Why do you say that? And does it have bearing on the present discussion concerning socialism?

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Darwin's theory was obviously somewhat defective in that the concept of survival of the fittest didn't take somebody like you into consideration.

The so-called "survival of the fittest" rubric is a phrase which was never used by Darwin and is indeed a completely wrong-headed way to interpret evolutionary theory.

Oh? ""Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."" -Wikipedia

bobevenson wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Darwin's theory was obviously somewhat defective in that the concept of survival of the fittest didn't take somebody like you into consideration.

The so-called "survival of the fittest" rubric is a phrase which was never used by Darwin and is indeed a completely wrong-headed way to interpret evolutionary theory.

Oh? ""Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."" -Wikipedia

I'm not sure that was Darwin's intent, though, and I believe evolutionary theory has since moved on from such oversimplifications. For example altruism is a very powerful mechanism in a species and, though it may not directly benefit the individual practicing it, may be of enormous benefit to the welfare of the species over all. Human social organization is much more complex than a simplistic "rat race" between individuals vying for individual survival.

I don't have any children, nor do I plan to. I don't think that makes me somehow "deficient". I can still live a perfectly good life and contribute to the general welfare despite the fact that I won't have any progeny.

bobevenson wrote:Please, you're missing the big picture of evolution, my friend.

And what is the "big picture"? And how does it apply to socialism, which is the topic of this thread?

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Please, you're missing the big picture of evolution, my friend.

And what is the "big picture"? And how does it apply to socialism, which is the topic of this thread?

Society didn't get to where it is today by following the Golden Rule, but by who has the gold rules.

bobevenson wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Please, you're missing the big picture of evolution, my friend.

And what is the "big picture"? And how does it apply to socialism, which is the topic of this thread?

Society didn't get to where it is today by following the Golden Rule, but by who has the gold rules.

I disagree. Many people have followed the Golden Rule and done a lot of good for society. Many people have not and done a lot of malice for society.