/lit/ - Literature

What is there to discuss, seems a pretty good explanation/distinction.

>>4704953
why do you "need" eat food?

>>4704977
ya o wow u r totally right this dumb article presupposes that an organism strives to perdure despite forces of entropy, total shite

>>4704985
>strives
so you mean "wants"

>>4704992
no i mean "strives". enjoy high school.

>>4704977
Why do you "need" to breathe, pls stop.

>>4704997
>striving for something you don't want

>>4704998
because you "want" to live

>>4705005
>not understanding the psychodynamical dimensions of the word "want"

oh so you're in middle school, then

>>4705005
Yes and for the same reason you need to eat, dumb dumb. It really ain't that complicated.

>>4705005
Why not "need" to live?

>>4705018
Still subjective, you can't apply objectivity to that

>>4705032
>relying on the flimsy "subjective/objective" distinction (which you clearly don't understand) to make your argument, just like a 12 y.o.

>>4705028
But saying that you "need" to eat because you "want" to live makes that claimed "need" for food a "want" for food.

>>4705032
You can't kill yourself by holding your breath you have an objective will to live. You have to construct an artificial accident to kill yourself. Wanting to die on the other hand is subjective.

>>4705047
no it doesn't.

everyone out of this troll thread. time to report another ten year old

>>4705045
I'm not relying on it to make an argument, I just wanted to discuss what the idea of needs and wants. Needs outside of postulated mathematics are always tied to desires

>>4705055
>You can't kill yourself by holding your breath you have an objective will to live

are you saying your body has a will? when attempting to kill yourself by holding your breath you are stopped by your bodies ability not by a "will to live".

>You have to construct an artificial accident to kill yourself.
no

>Wanting to live is objective but wanting to die is subjective

>>4705061
If you think it doesn't, it still makes that claimed "need" for food meaningless because you only require food to satisfy your desire to live

>>4705030
only if you can provide a reason for why you "need" to live that can't be tied in with some desire.

>>4705109
Are you not your body? Are you mentally impaired?

>>4705153
How could one do this when you are clearly just being pedantic arguing semantics.

>>4705166
How could one do it without semantics being considered?

>>4705184
Because you clearly haven't grasped the distinctions made in OPs pic.

>>4705163
>Are you not your body?
do you believe I am my body? If so, why ask if I'm mentally impaired rather than if I'm physically impaired.

>>4704977
There's "needs" under the assumption that the person wants to live a quality life.

>>4705191
>the distinctions made in OPs pic.
what, the

>Needs are distinguished from wants because a deficiency would cause a clear negative outcome, such as dysfunction or death."

This implies negativity (regarding outcomes) is objective. Especially when providing examples death and dysfunction.

>>4705205
Yes, but that means the "need" is tied to an overall desired outcome, making the "need" itself a "want".

>>4705126
see >>4704985
and then die

>>4705241
see>>4704992
>>4704997
>>4705005
>>4705018
>>4705032
>>4705045
>>4705072
Don't worry I'm in the process of dying, approaching death, "living", implying existence

>>4704977

"a need is something that is necessary for organisms to live a healthy life"

we could even just cut this down to "a need is something that is necessary for an organism to live."

needs and wants are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and they in fact often align just nicely. i both want and need to eat food, because i want to live, and if i don't eat food, i die. however, i might not want to eat food--i might wish to starve myself to death. that does not mean i don't still need food if i am to continue living.

this should be pretty much self-evident, i don't know what you find here to challenge.

>>4705215

you guys are missing the fucking premise/definition: "a need is something that is necessary for organisms to live a healthy life," which can be shortened to "a need is something that is necessary for an organism to live."

"negative" is in its value-neutral sense here, as in "death is the negation of life."

>>4705302
Yes, but I am saying that claiming something is a need, and a need alone is contradictory with the fact that it is tied to an overall desire. Does this not cause the "need" to actually be a "want".

>>4705336

that's just you unnecessarily conflating the two concepts and claiming they're a unity. again, some object can be both a want and a need. that does not mean that wants and needs are the same, as there are other objects that are needs but not necessarily wants, and vice-versa. you can draw up some venn-diagrams to see this is the case.

>>4705350
>as there are other objects that are needs but not necessarily wants

how are they still be considered as some kind of an objective need if they are only formed by an overarching desire

Needs are subjective.

You don't need air, but you do need it in order to live.

I don't need loads of money, but I do if I want to buy a big fucking mansion.

>>4705371

we don't need to bring in "objectivity" into this. i used the term "object" as an intentional variable. we are doing conceptual analysis--that's it.

again, a need is not necessarily tied to a want or desire. i, an organism, might not want to live, and so stop eating. that does not change the fact that, if i am to continue living, i need basic nutritious food.

we can take the opposite as an example as well. i might want a piece of chocolate, but under normal conditions i do not necessarily need that piece of chocolate in order to continue living.

i don't even know how you are deriving this notion that needs are necessarily "formed" by desires. again, an object may be a need and a desire simultaneously. but i would even think that when this is the case, if anything, it is the need that conditions the desire.

>>4705323
If it is using negative in that sense then it is saying the organism's deficiency of that wanted "thing" would not be negative, while the deficiency is denying the organism of that wanted "thing" (the negation of it). I do not think it is being used in that sense.

>>4705401

you're slipping in "want" in place of "need," which is not in the original claim. you're doing this because you can't seem to think past this conflation of "want" and "need."

>If it is using negative in that sense then it is saying the organism's deficiency of that [needed] "thing" would not be negative

I don't know how you're getting this. If an organism has insufficient food then it cannot live a healthy life. Put another way, the absence of a need results in the negation of what that need would otherwise satisfy. ("satisfy" is to be taken in this context to mean "fulfills the necessary conditions for").

>>4705395

>you don't need air, but you do need it

>i don't need lots of money, but I do if I want

can you see the difference there?

>>4705420
>you're slipping in "want" in place of "need," which is not in the original claim

I am refering to the claim of how needs and wants are distinguished

>Needs are distinguished from wants because a deficiency would cause a clear negative outcome

>>4705429
>If it is using negative in that sense then it is saying the organism's deficiency of that wanted "thing" would not be negative, while the deficiency is denying the organism of that wanted "thing" (the negation of it).

the term "need" does not appear anywhere in there, does it? you're trying to close the gap for some, as far as I can tell, inane purpose

>>4705438
>the term "need" does not appear anywhere in there, does it?

It does in

>Needs are distinguished from wants because a deficiency would cause a clear negative outcome

>>4705449

Right, and then you "paraphrase," but leave out the distinction between need and want and simply use the term "want".

This conversation is completely fucking asinine.

OP please define what you mean by desires. If a plant grows towards the sun is it a desire? Does water have the desire the evaporate? Does a human desire to blink? If any of these answers conflict, please explain why one is a desire and one is not.

>>4705451
the word negation refers to the lack of/denial of. if the use of "negative" in

>Needs are distinguished from wants because a deficiency would cause a clear negative outcome

is in the sense of negation, then what is the lack of/denial of a "wanted" thing? Is it not a negative outcome?

>>4705461

IT'S NOT THE LACK OF/DENIAL OF A "WANTED" THING. IT'S THE NEGATION OF A "NEEDED" THING.

10/10 HOLY FUCK.

>>4705461

And "negative" with respect to the definition of need, being "something that is necessary for an organism to live." The lack of a want does not result in the negation of life. That's the distinction. Jesus.

>>4705469
>IT'S
what are you referring to when saying "IT"

If a human is alive one of it's needs are to eat. As long as it is alive eating will remain a need. Whether you want to be alive or not is irrelevant. If you no longer want to be alive, and you stop eating, it doesn't mean you don't need to eat anymore, it just means that you'll stop being alive because you didn't meet the needs of being alive. You will have died from not maintaining something you needed to do.

Your mistake is that you attach will intently to 'need' when it only exists in certain context. Sometimes it deals will realities.

Another example, humans need water. If you don't have water, you stop being a human. It has nothing to do with 'wanting'. You see, the wanting comes AFTER. The reason you want water is because it's an instinct, it's a reaction designed around the need, but assuming we would still drink water even if we had no desire to (let's say we lived in water and could absorb it through osmosis for example), it wouldn't be a want.

>>4705476
>The lack of a want does not result in the negation of life

lacking the want for food and life can't result in the negation of life?

>>4705479

The "what" of "what is the lack of/denial of x."

How fucking stupid can a fucking person be?

>>4705484

No. I should have wrote "the lack of a want does not NECESSARILY result in the negation of life." You should have been able to infer this on your own, though.

If a desire HAPPENS TO ALIGN with a need, then the lack of that desire WILL result in the negation of life. but the relationship is not NECESSARY in the same way to is NECESSARY with a need.

It's fine if they associate needs with life and staying alive, but I don't like how they sneak in that "healthy" and "dysfunctional" bit. Really grinds my normativity sensors. I'd also argue that self-esteem isn't quite a need. It might correlate with staying alive (not committing suicide or avoiding risky lifestyles), but it isn't *needed* to avoid those things.

>>4705485
>The "what" of "what is the lack of/denial of x."

ok, then this was the relay

>then what is the lack of/denial of a "wanted" thing?
>IT'S NOT THE LACK OF/DENIAL OF A "WANTED" THING

>>4705497

I missed your meaning at first, as I was anticipating the same thing as in your previous posts.

Defer to >>4705476 and>>4705494

>>4705492
Why don't you think self-esteem is a need?

>>4705503
ok, well I'm pretty tired, as are you of this I can see, so I will stop. I do understand what you are saying, It's the similar to how I believe that needs can apply to postulated mathematics. Though outside of that I think the idea is misused quite often. Thanks for staying. asinine as it was, more efficient than masturbating for 2 hours.

>>4705572

I'm sorry I lost my temper and started calling you names. That was uncalled for.

>>4705595
shut up faggot nigger cunt. seriously, I don't give a shit.

>>4705608

>>4704945
>>4704945
What's the point of this thread , it's just one huge chesspool of nothingness

What you refer to as a "want to live" is actually a condition which leads to actual wants and needs. The dead have no wants or needs and those who wish to die might as well be considered dead.

>>4705628

It's a metaphor for your life.

>>4705572
Not the guy you were conversing with, but I think that behind most wants are needs. The 'negation' occurs at the needs level, and may result from a denial of a 'want', but is not defined by the want.

For example, if having a tv is a want and you don't get it, it may have a negative impact on you. But the negative in pact would be something along the lines of 'negated happiness'. The happiness is a need, the tv is a want. If you don't get the tv, but you get an Ipod instead, you might get that happiness you need back. The want is a means to an end (end being a need).

Or a more rigid example. A food is a want, the need is in the nutrients the food contains. You could have any number of foods, it doesn't matter as a need which food you eat aslong as you get the required nutrients (pancakes vs waffles, you may want one or the other, but it is irrelevant to the need).

The negative effect that impacts the need can occur from the denial of the want, but will never exist as a need itself.

>>4705628
a metaphor for the truth behind metaphysics.

OP here, have some debussy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBNpDpKjn1A

>>4705639
"happiness" is relative, and it can't be claimed a need. You want to be happy, happiness is a desire, and as our faggotry has concluded there are certain needs that result in achieving that desire. I think that the needs that result in achieving a desire are not needs but "wants" because they lead to an overarching desire.

>>4705528
Well, for one, it doesn't really exist in concrete terms so we couldn't measure the "lack" of self-esteem other than through surveys. On the other hand, as I said in my post you can still survive with low self-esteem.