2007-05-24 06:00:42 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Alex, I like your quote on
aristotle - you have gone beyond the basic tenets of life and that is another dimesion of being human.
Thank you everyone for their very good answers too.
2007-05-28 06:55:34 · update #1
Alex, I like your quote on
aristotle - you have gone beyond the basic tenets of life and that is another dimesion of being human.
Thank you everyone for their very good answers too.
2007-05-28 06:56:03 · update #2
I wonder why it's on twice!!!
2007-05-28 06:57:27 · update #3
Live and let live implies that there other survivors other than oneself. Survival of the fittest implies that the only survivor is the fittest. In this world I'd rather live with others.
2007-05-24 15:03:43 · answer #1 · answered by gusomar 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that the two ideas you mention are unrelated.
Live and let live has to do with ethics. It does not sound bad but it needs more elaboration. Do we let others live in misery or pain? Does it refer only to humans?
Survival of the fittest comes from evolution. It also needs elaboration but if I understand you well you are using it also as an ethical proposition and this is something I don't really understand. Evolution is a sound theory for explaining the diversity of living forms. It does not state anything at all about a purpose of evolution and doe not give ethical imperatives. It just happens, like gravity. An engineer can use gravity in his designs but there is no ethical imperative that says we should follow gravity and start falling from rooftops. On ethical terms evolution may offer some insights to the future consequences of our actions but can not offer any imperatives.
2007-05-24 13:45:30 · answer #2 · answered by dimitris k 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only distinction you make is that some who envision the survival of the fittest from the material and spiritual perspectives are licensed to prove might makes right. Otherwise, "live and let live" is still under the umbrella of survival of the fittest.
I think your question would be more meaningful if it asked what is meant by "fittest?" I am of the opinion Darwin expressed a different awareness of "fittest" than what we typically assume today.
2007-05-24 14:56:20 · answer #3 · answered by Wizard 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Survival of the fittest!
I am a strong proponent of the evolutionary advantages of natural selection. I have a difficult time imagining a world that does not allow species to adapt to constantly changing environments.
I deplore that fact that we often interfere on the behalf of weakness simply to assauge our own emotional insecurities. Of course, to the extent that our interference was originally responsible...well, that's another matter.
Good question.
2007-05-24 13:09:14 · answer #4 · answered by el_dormilon 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with gwennie....they aren't mutually exclusive.
Aside from that - human technology screws with survival of the fittest anyway. We have access to things that neither our intellectual prowess nor our physical strength lent us. It's more like survival of the lucky.
2007-05-24 13:46:34 · answer #5 · answered by hellotman16 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The ultimate value of life depends upon awareness and the power of contemplation rather than upon mere survival....Aristotle.
2007-05-24 13:54:41 · answer #6 · answered by Alex 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Survival of Humanity!
Or man-kind is done!
2007-05-24 14:32:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I say live and let live. Why does everything have to be a competition?
2007-05-24 13:04:32 · answer #8 · answered by Nasubi 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it is still options of free choice, be my guest, choose one, but do not expect a paradize you hoping for...unless you are a living embodiment of Love itself or pure evil...
2007-05-24 14:01:52 · answer #9 · answered by Oleg B 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on your occupation...
2007-05-24 14:30:58 · answer #10 · answered by Einstein Reincarnate 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋