Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:What is weakness, and how does it manifest?

Why don't you just get yourself a fucking dictionary?

Yearh! ..what Harbal said!

One has to be unusual uhmm ..mentally suppressed if asking such basic question, maybe in excess need of attention?

Maybe you missed my response to that question. Leave the psychotherapy to the professionals.

Is resilience strength and stiffness weakness ?

In a famous tale (une fable) by Jean de La Fontaine an oak boasts of being strong and derides a reed. When a storm comes the oak gets struck and perishes, the reed bows with the wind and survives.

Jaded Sage wrote:Maybe you missed my response to that question. Leave the psychotherapy to the professionals.

How do you know he isn't a professional?

duszek wrote:Is resilience strength and stiffness weakness ?

In a famous tale (une fable) by Jean de La Fontaine an oak boasts of being strong and derides a slim plant. When a storm comes the oak gets struck and perishes, the slim plant bows with the wind and survives.

Good point. It depends. If they were eucalypt trees in Australia and there was a bushfire, then the situations would be reversed.

I use to enjoy a fairly famous psychedelic music band. After their first American tour, two key members left because the experience was more gruelling than they could handle. A remaining member described them as "weak", but added that it was not a judgement because "weakness can also be a quality". I spent years trying to make sense of that and, as I said a bit earlier in the thread, weakness just means one has fewer niches that one can occupy. That doesn't mean a weak person or animal can't be highly successful occupying a suitable niche.

Greta wrote:weakness just means one has fewer niches that one can occupy.

That's the most creative definition I've ever seen on this site.

I wonder if that is the definition of incapability or incompetence tho.

Lack of capability would be a type of weakness, JS. There are many ways of being weak, or strong for that matter.

If the ability to survive in bad circumstances is an indicator of strength then the strongest animals would be

1. rats
2. cockroaches

I am not sure about the order though, cockroaches can survive radioactive polution so perhaps they are the champions of survival.

Germs could be even better. Does anyone know ?

If we look at the human species are honest and decent people better at surviving or rather bullies, liers, cheaters, manipulators, fraudsters, mobsters ?

duszek wrote:If we look at the human species are honest and decent people better at surviving or rather bullies, liers, cheaters, manipulators, fraudsters, mobsters ?

Nature has always operated on a "might is right" basis. However, in a world dominated by humans, tiny delicate creatures like flies and mosquitoes can thrive. I think the idea is that, if you're weak, you either choose your battles wisely or avoid them altogether. The range in which you can operate is less that the strong, so they must seek out the niches that the strong have either rejected or missed.

Why would a strong being reject a niche?

Jaded Sage wrote:Why would a strong being reject a niche?

Because the strong is enjoying a better niche and you can't be everywhere at one. Strong animals take prime territories, and the weaker make do with what the strong don't need.

Or don't want, I suppose.

duszek wrote:If the ability to survive in bad circumstances is an indicator of strength then the strongest animals would be

1. rats
2. cockroaches

I am not sure about the order though, cockroaches can survive radioactive polution so perhaps they are the champions of survival.

Germs could be even better. Does anyone know ?

Well, if I recall correctly, algae, bacteria, and fungi are the oldest, unchanged groups on this planet. Not a bad survival record.

All three are also not very sophisticated. So is their strength not worth much or is simplicity the ultimate sophistication?