No such thing as need.

[Lipidman]

Re: No such thing as need.

Can I just clear up something and say that breathing is NOT a voluntary action. It's primarily a function of the autonomic nervous system and is therefore automatic. If it were completely manual we wouldn't be able to sleep because we'd die.

Also, it's impossible to kill yourself by a cessation of breathing (holding your breath, that is). You'd at most faint and then your autonomic nervous system would kick in and you'd be breathing again, albeit unconsciously. Therefore breathing ISN'T something you can inevitably decide or control.

As for the topic itself, it's just petty semantics.

[perkeyone]

Re: No such thing as need.

Let me begin with how I came across the idea.

I was speaking with a friend of mine, who stated that "they needed music everyday". I thought quietly to myself, thinking "You don't really NEED music...you just desire it". I asked them "What makes you think you NEED music? Won't you still be alive tomorrow if you don't listen to any?" They replied "I tried to go a day without it...I just couldn't do it."

This left me pondering. In these modern times, where do people draw the line between need and want? Let's look at some basic definitions of the two words.

Need:An obligation, necessity, or requirement.

Want: To desire, crave, or demand.

Most will say that a need is something you have to do, or have no other choice than to perform that need (will now be referred to as 'the common view of need'). Let's combine that with the definition above. The common view of need states only the first part of the definition, "an action that must be taken", but it's the second half of the definition that gives it the twist, "to avoid consequences". Where do you draw the line that something has to be done, and no other option is available?

This is where I have skepticism, these consequences are only things that one wants to avoid. The consequence is an option, just an undesirable one. Let's look at a few situations.

"I need a new pair of socks."

My reflection: No you don't, you only want a new pair of socks because you don't want to deal without them or deal with the condition of your current socks.

Let's look at a more serious situation.

"I need to breathe."

Though the consequence is much more severe than not getting a new pair of socks, the same principle applies. Death is still an option, it's only a consequence one wants to avoid.

Need is not what it appears to be to us. Need is just a play on words for what we want not to happen.

Now I'm not looking to obliterate the word, it makes sentence making much simpler. You get to say "I need a new pair of socks" rather than "I don't want to continue being without an adequate pair of socks." The purpose of the word is to simplify and clarify speech, but there is no such thing as an need in the sense of the common view due to the fact that you always have another option, though perhaps undesirable.

i swear i was going to make a post like this.
i thought of the same (or damn near the same) thing.

People use "I need" with implied goals.

For example, "I need water," is actually implying, "I need water [to live]."

Let's say you're baking a cake and you say, "I need flour." What you actually mean is, "I need flour [to bake the cake]."

Just because people don't say the goal doesn't mean they don't need to use the word "need".

lol i dont need to say need but i dont want to say want

This is correct. The part of the sentence you are not seeing though, is the implied "to replace my old ones". One doesn't merely "need socks", but in order to replace old ones, yes, they would be needed.


Needs are easily defined as things which are necessary to live. Breathing and eating are needs. Intake of water is a need. Sleep and shelter are arguably needs as well, although these two are more easily skirted without death as an overt consequence.


Ok then, how about this:


Duh. But it would be stupid to vocalize the entire sentence. Your implied part of "to remain living" is inherent in the topic-- anyone hearing you would know fully that breathing is only necessary to sustain life.

In the end though, a "need" is based on a causal relationship. If there is a need, then that need is filled only a condition.

In the case of breathing, it's need is required for life. One can't have life without breathing.

In the case of new socks, it's need is required to replace old socks. One cannot replace old socks without getting new socks.

Arguing beyond this is very silly. You're splitting semantic hairs here to feign philosophical depth, and you're not even doing a good job of it.

ps one cannot will themselves to death by choosing not to breathe. Just a little heads up there for people using the argument that if one wants to die, then breathing isn't a "need".

pps hi tokzic you said what i was going to but i already spent so much trouble on this post im just gonna hit submit anyway 8)

edit: oh btw tokzic, you "imply", I "infer"

as far as "splitting semantic hairs here to feign philosophical depth" this sounds like some borderline ad hominem garbage that should gtfo of ct

your argument about not being able to kill yourself by not breathing seems irrelevant. the lack of human capacity to suicide by not breathing has no correlation to the fact that all needs can be expressed as a series of obligations based on wants.

[kommisar[os]]

Re: No such thing as need.

basically people just use need as an exaggeration now. sarcasm if you will

[TC_Halogen]

Re: No such thing as need.

basically people just use need as an exaggeration now. sarcasm if you will

This is true in so many cases. Many people who desperately want some sort of supply might go as far as to say that they "NEED" to have it to continue on with their daily lives, when in reality, there are other people who not only CAN commit to their daily lives without that certain item, but actually do.

your argument about not being able to kill yourself by not breathing seems irrelevant.

I think it's relevant. This was said:

Also, it's impossible to kill yourself by a cessation of breathing (holding your breath, that is). You'd at most faint and then your autonomic nervous system would kick in and you'd be breathing again, albeit unconsciously.

You can argue for this being an implied need; one of which you cannot control. Of course you can argue that you don't NEED to breathe to survive, but then you go back to Lipidman's post, where you would at most, just faint--and then start breathing again. You don't foresee breathing as a need, but if you stop doing it, your body takes over and forces you to do it anyway. This would be in a normal case--however; you can always say that you can suffocate yourself to a point where you cannot breathe, but this is an uncommon and extreme case.

[perkeyone]

Re: No such thing as need.

You can argue for this being an implied need; one of which you cannot control. Of course you can argue that you don't NEED to breathe to survive, but then you go back to Lipidman's post, where you would at most, just faint--and then start breathing again. You don't foresee breathing as a need, but if you stop doing it, your body takes over and forces you to do it anyway. This would be in a normal case--however; you can always say that you can suffocate yourself to a point where you cannot breathe, but this is an uncommon and extreme case.

my point is:
if you could kill your self by holding your breath, would that some how change the definition of need?
no.
either way "needs" is a subset of "wants".
the whole holding your breath thing and the others are just example scenarios, only there to help explain, not to establish the context.

once again
needs are the requirements of wants.

if you dont eat... youll die
but since you dont need to be alive
the "need" to eat is actually only a want

try this
start with any arbitrary need

1. lets call the need "a"
2. think to yourself "i need "a" in order to..."
3. lets call your reason "b"
4. if "b" is a want then youre done
if not then put your new need back into step one

youll probably find that eventually you will exhaust all needs into basic wants

[devonin]

Re: No such thing as need.

As for the topic itself, it's just petty semantics.

This is the correct statement of the thread.

Your hair-splitting with the claim that everything is a want because even something like "I need to breathe" isn't true because you could choose to instead not breathe and thus die is semantically correct, so congratulations on that?

However, if you've therefore classified absolutely everything as a "want" and not a "need" then we no longer have a method of distinguishing between things that we want in order to perpetuate our existance and things that we want in order to improve the quality of that existance.

Necesseties (of life) and Luxuries (for life) are the categories to which we attach the terms 'need' and 'want' and that is a very helpful and useful distinction even if you could semantically suggest that even needs are just a certain type of stronger want.

I mean if anything, one thing you do NEED to do in the sense of showing you that there are needs even if you classify everything as a want instead: For wants whose negative consequence is the cessation of your existance, you NEED to determine whether not fulfilling that want is worth the cessation of your existance. This is a process that absolutely must happen with 100% certainly, thus is a need.

[perkeyone]

Re: No such thing as need.

This is the correct statement of the thread.

Your hair-splitting with the claim that everything is a want because even something like "I need to breathe" isn't true because you could choose to instead not breathe and thus die is semantically correct, so congratulations on that?

However, if you've therefore classified absolutely everything as a "want" and not a "need" then we no longer have a method of distinguishing between things that we want in order to perpetuate our existance and things that we want in order to improve the quality of that existance.

Necesseties (of life) and Luxuries (for life) are the categories to which we attach the terms 'need' and 'want' and that is a very helpful and useful distinction even if you could semantically suggest that even needs are just a certain type of stronger want.

I mean if anything, one thing you do NEED to do in the sense of showing you that there are needs even if you classify everything as a want instead: For wants whose negative consequence is the cessation of your existance, you NEED to determine whether not fulfilling that want is worth the cessation of your existance. This is a process that absolutely must happen with 100% certainly, thus is a need.

or maybe its fusing hairs?

of course they words are useful thats why they exist.
there definitely is a want/need for words to distinguish between necessities of life and luxuries.
i dont think the argument is being made that the words should be abolished
or even that ones perspective should be permanently changed to only think of "needs" as "strong wants".
the traditional perspective is fine if not better.
i think that the purpose is only to subject everyone to an alternate perspective.

i think there is a strong possibility that everyone is already in agreement but the wording is just slightly different.

maybe instead it should be stated that there is no such thing as an 'absolute and universal need which must happen' because with all needs (used in the traditional sense) there are alternatives

also the word "must" could be subject to the same rules
an 'absolute and universal must' is basically a 'will' since there are no alternatives

[UberMario]

Re: No such thing as need.

want is something someone craves, sure. and need is something someone may or may not crave/want, but is a necessity. The only thing you left out is that both terms are in reference to something and "needing" something is furthermore a necessity in order to do a task.

"I want to close the door."

In reference to jacking off with the door closed.

"I need to close the door."

In reference to the necessity of not having people that walk by see what you're doing.

[Lipidman]

Re: No such thing as need.

my point is:
if you could kill your self by holding your breath, would that some how change the definition of need?
no.
either way "needs" is a subset of "wants".
the whole holding your breath thing and the others are just example scenarios, only there to help explain, not to establish the context.

The OP said that death was still an option because breathing was simply a want in order to avoid the consequences of death. What I'm saying is that you have NO option because even if you ceased to breath consciously, you would at most faint and continue to breathe unconsciously. Therefore it was an invalid example because death as a consequence via a cessation of breathing is not a choice and is impossible (unless you had Ondine's Curse, but then that isn't a choice either).

I'm not arguing the semanitics of wants and needs. I already addressed that in my post (see Devonin's quote). I'm simply arguing fact.

[Afrombean]

Re: No such thing as need.

You guys are inviting ad hominem upon yourself by continuing to post things and failing to acknowlege that the point has already been nailed by myself + Tokzic or Devonin. There is nothing to this. You truly are being ridiculous here. Every time someone uses the word "need", there is a condition to be filled. Whether this condition is stated or not is irrelevant. When a person says "I need to breathe", the condition is that they're trying to remain living. They say "I need to breathe", but the implication is "I need to breathe to not die." They don't need to explicitly state it, just like if I said, "Shut the hell up," I would not need to explicitly state that it is you that I'm angry with.

Seriously. That's all there is to it. Discussion beyond that is irrelevant. Literally every example of a person using the word "need" can be accompanied by a goal, either explicit or implied (more than often, it is implied, because a need's goal is normally obvious in the need itself). In addition, all of these uses are legitimate, even if you don't think so.

I need to stop coming to this subforum.

See what I did there? The implied goal is to avoid the stupidity 8)

[Ice wolf]

Re: No such thing as need.

You guys are inviting ad hominem upon yourself by continuing to post things and failing to acknowlege that the point has already been nailed by myself + Tokzic or Devonin. There is nothing to this. You truly are being ridiculous here. Every time someone uses the word "need", there is a condition to be filled. Whether this condition is stated or not is irrelevant. When a person says "I need to breathe", the condition is that they're trying to remain living. They say "I need to breathe", but the implication is "I need to breathe to not die." They don't need to explicitly state it, just like if I said, "Shut the hell up," I would not need to explicitly state that it is you that I'm angry with.

Seriously. That's all there is to it. Discussion beyond that is irrelevant. Literally every example of a person using the word "need" can be accompanied by a goal, either explicit or implied (more than often, it is implied, because a need's goal is normally obvious in the need itself). In addition, all of these uses are legitimate, even if you don't think so.

I need to stop coming to this subforum.

See what I did there? The implied goal is to avoid the stupidity 8)

I need to quote this post in order to get more people to read and understand it.

[perkeyone]

Re: No such thing as need.

You guys are inviting ad hominem upon yourself by continuing to post things and failing to acknowlege that the point has already been nailed by myself + Tokzic or Devonin. There is nothing to this. You truly are being ridiculous here. Every time someone uses the word "need", there is a condition to be filled. Whether this condition is stated or not is irrelevant. When a person says "I need to breathe", the condition is that they're trying to remain living. They say "I need to breathe", but the implication is "I need to breathe to not die." They don't need to explicitly state it, just like if I said, "Shut the hell up," I would not need to explicitly state that it is you that I'm angry with.

Seriously. That's all there is to it. Discussion beyond that is irrelevant. Literally every example of a person using the word "need" can be accompanied by a goal, either explicit or implied (more than often, it is implied, because a need's goal is normally obvious in the need itself). In addition, all of these uses are legitimate, even if you don't think so.

I need to stop coming to this subforum.

See what I did there? The implied goal is to avoid the stupidity 8)

The OP said that death was still an option because breathing was simply a want in order to avoid the consequences of death. What I'm saying is that you have NO option because even if you ceased to breath consciously, you would at most faint and continue to breathe unconsciously. Therefore it was an invalid example because death as a consequence via a cessation of breathing is not a choice and is impossible (unless you had Ondine's Curse, but then that isn't a choice either).

I'm not arguing the semanitics of wants and needs. I already addressed that in my post (see Devonin's quote). I'm simply arguing fact.

you mean to avoid butthurt.
regardless of weather it was invited, as you say, it is illogical and therefor not suited for ct.
ct implies a want for civility, but you dont need to be civil...
the alternative option is usually punishment at the discretion of the mods

a lot of what you two have stated is true.
yes, when someone expresses a need they are implying a goal.
yes, you cannot kill yourself by not breathing.
yes, the op did say death was an option.
yes, that was an invalid example

but heres the twist
when corrected the example still functions according to said principal

death is not the consequence for holding your breath
it is fainting

so really the options are to
a. breath normally
b. stop breathing and pass out

nothing you have said disproves the principal that
all needs are simply high priority wants

[devonin]

Re: No such thing as need.

nothing you have said disproves the principal that
all needs are simply high priority wants

But after you b) stop breathing and pass out, breathing starts up again and continues without your input or conscious choice to do so. There's the flaw in you trying to pass that off as just another example.

However, Afro is correct that there is nothing more to discuss here.

The claim forwarded in the OP is semantically valid, but like tautology, doesn't actually tell us anything new or useful.