Philosophy Now Forum

David Dobereiner reviews the history of the nature of Nature.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/106/Wh ... _Is_Nature

This article implies that nature, in contrast to humans, is a nice gentle place. But nature is just as red in the tooth and competitive, if not more so. But since humans are part of nature we have acquired from it similar 'killer' instincts, like those of competition and survival. I am sure, though, we have also acquired from nature the need to cooperate with each other if we want to grow, like the different branches of nature cooperate to survive.

The author rebukes Herbert Spencer for reading Darwin wrong, believing that his theory meant the survival of the fittest. Well, in a way it is about that in order that humans develop in the best possible way, in organizing and governing themselves. Nature is full of exaggerations. Spencer's remark was like an exaggeration, as a way to motivate humans to reach their full potential. However, like nature, he wasn't thinking about the collateral damage.

And here again is another article deploring competition and saying it's bad. On the contrary. Competition is good because that is how we develop and progress. Competition keeps us alive and awake so that we don't atrophy or collapse as a society. Undeniably, though, cooperation is just as important. But there would be no cooperation if there wasn't competition first.

This article is also written in the lap of luxury, the luxury that we a have reached such a level of development that we can afford to reflect and lambaste ourselves for past discretions and insensitivities. But if we were still struggling like we were a hundred years ago one wouldn't be writing like this.