J. Krueger agrees with me when she says she's "always wondered if there weren't a definitional tautology involved in "survival of the fittest" -- what do we call those who survive? fitter than others... Or define fittest? Those who survive..." McCreery's reply involves a polysemy that I would avoid: "The particular example I posted is a nice illustration of how fitness takes on different senses depending on the relevant context." I did not get too involved in the example -- I don't DO beetles. But I think Krueger's point needs formalising. As she notes: it's a matter of gradational adjectives: 'fit' 'fitter' 'fittest' In symbols, x, and y. x is Fitter than y (Fxy). x is the fittest -- needs to be formalised as the negation of an existential for any variable y. -(Ey)Fyx --- Back to Krueger: "always wondered if there weren't a definitional tautology involved in "survival of the fittest" -- what do we call those who survive? fitter than others... " ----- But we don't need to. But maybe we do. This meaning of 'fit', which is nonexistent in Graeco-Roman literature, is a Malthusian, Spencerian 'technicism'. I do agree that it's a matter of '=df', in which case, McCreery's titling of this post involves a contradiction: It is NECESSARY that the fittest survive. Krueger continues: "Or define fittest? Those who survive..."" ------ Grice has used some of this terminology. He defines this and that regarding this or that 'pirot' as he calls them. 'to survive' is possibly the wrong verb, too. I don't think it is backed in Graeco-Roman philosophical vocabulary. It is, again, a new thing by Spencer, and Malthus, from "Little England" -- from the time of the 'dark satanic mills', and stuff. Cheers, Speranza -- Bordighera Or define fittest? Those who survive..." ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html