No single philosophy can cover life's needs..............................?

[metalscorpionhare]

.......but you can possibly combine them to cover most contingencies. We'll start somewhere near the bottom as a peasant in Stalinist Russia (stoicism seems appropriate here) if you've survived this then only Existentialism seems to cope with the absurdity of it all. Now you can relax a bit as life becomes more comfortable so Epicureanism seems the business- but with an eye on life's vicissitudes we keep American Pragmatism at hand- doubtless another disaster will crop up- Anybody thought of alternative packages?
..survival of the fittest is a retrospective explanation of why whatever has survived has survived. It does not equip you to adapt to change (i.e. to 'fit') Practising philosophy may do.
"Survival of the fittest" is a tautology. It adds nothing to anyone's understanding.
species adapt biologically. Individuals may adapt culturally. If that culture is Pol Pot's Cambodia your brain might be a hazard. A Stoic approach might save your life. Not every human thought is a great leap forward.

[amberwolf_for_art]

When all is said and done, when all is given that was asked for, the only one thing everyone desires is freedom.

[Yaoi Shonen-ai]

Oh, have you been hoodwinked by your philosophy profs. I don't know where to begin, so I won't.

[josephrosecarpenter]

I like your answer. There are (according to Cambell) four stages of life.

Warrior
Priest
Philosopher
King

I suppose your first three match up well, leaving the philosophy of a king to debate.

I would hope that the king is a Bhuddist! But now we are getting into politics....gotta go!

[mtheoryrules]

Oh but there is
Survival of the fittest is an uncontested approximation that covers it all.
Adapt or perish this is a reality of life.
The rest is conjecture.
You are equipped with a brain that is theoretically the result of a survival adaptation, if it does not serve you as a tool that can adapt to change perhaps you should ask for a refund.

Not true, for the same applies to ideas and concepts within the context of reason, only rationally "fit" ideas are accepted and passed on to our descendants.
That is the function of reason to screen unfit ideas and concepts so that only the "strong" rational ideas survive.
Perhaps this is to simple but I believe it is quite valid expand upon it where ever you feel a need but in the end our ideas will adapt when new knowledge is gained or perish as a fallacy made apparent by that knowledge.

If a change in environment takes place then natural selection will play its part.
Like or not this simple philosophy of life has a better over all track record then the comparatively brief human philosophies so I am willing to bet that there is something to it, you don't have to agree but you are the one asking the question here not me.
Why should you be surprised if I give you an answer you do not like, pass it over and chose an answer that agrees with you.
I understand no hard feelings.
Tell you what to show that I am a good sport I will concede that you have good point if you can provide an exapmple of a person, say a south american jungle inhabitant, whom can not be said to have the notion that world is round, lets say that this person believes that the earth is flat, and after eveidence is presented to this persen that shows that the earth is indeed round if that person still disagrees with the assertion then I will say that you must surely have a valid point.
But until then I will continue to think I said it best.

Upon further consideration I accept that you may have a valid point, for the probably exists that life may exist else where in this universe, that it may have developed a different philosophy for survival may well be the case.
However I will maintain that my point remains valid when dealing exclusively with the life that we know.