No such thing as need.

[Raveren]

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.

[MyDoctrine_00]

It's an interesting concept, and I see where you got it.
I agree that the word "need" in this case is mainly used to make sentences more convenient to say, although it can be confusing or misused a lot.

[Zageron]

I can support that theory.
I'm a complete computer person. People see me as someone who wouldn't be able to survive without a computer.
I've lasted 4 months without contact before. :\
Also, on the music aspect, I've been on MANY week long trips where iPODs were banned.

So yeah, there isn't really such a thing as "I NEED THIS CUZ".

[dore]

Originally Posted by Raveren

"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.

Up until there your point was valid. Considering that the most basic instinct is to survive and at the most basic level the purpose of life is the continuation of the species, I'd say that breathing is a need and not a want, going by your definition:

Need:An obligation, necessity, or requirement.

Want: To desire, crave, or demand.

because it si an obligation/necessity/requirement for life. In the same way, eating, sleeping, etc. are needs and not wants.

[Raveren]

And I would say you are completely right dore. Breathing is a necessity for life, but it's only because one wants to live, which is where you draw your line of tolerance. Death is still an option, one that 99.9% of any living being wants to avoid, but it is still a choice. You need to breathe because you do not want to die. Breathing is a requirement for living just as much as new socks are a requirement for comfortable feet (or whatever desired effect is achieved). Based on the same principle, just on two very different extremes.

[Sullyman2007]

Where do you draw the line that something has to be done, and no other option is available?

As said above.. needs are needs because you -need- them. Regardless of the outcome, you still need to breathe or else you will die. It sounds like this implies more to the basic needs of a human being, such as the 'need' to survive and continue reproducing.


If I said I -need- a new pair of socks, one could easily argue that I don't really -need- a new pair of socks, it would simply make my life a whole lot easier, rather than deal with the consequences of -not- having socks. If I said I -need- to breathe, you could say the same thing, but not to the same extent as saying you need a new pair of socks. If I don't breathe I will die. If I don't purchase a new pair of socks, my feet will hurt.

I suppose it is rather subjective, as you said:

Where do you draw the line that something has to be done, and no other option is available?

Some people would rather not buy a new pair of socks, knowing they could easily wear a pair of sandles instead or even withstand the sore feet. But I think if you put a hundred different people in a room and asked them wether or not they though breathing was a need, every single one of those people would raise their hands.

[dood gone krazee]

What he's getting that is that if you really look at it, Need = Want. I get the concept, pretty interesting. But as MyDoctrine said, if the actual theory was implemented into everyday sentence use, it could get confusing.

[x After Dawn x]

It depends on what judgement you are basing the need on. Most of the time, it is assumed that this judgement is based on survival and life, so in this case, physical needs would be food and water and the such, but if you are basing a need while ignoring detrimental consequences such as death, then yes, technically you are right.

Just know that when somebody corrects someone, they usually base it on the phrase, "you'll live without it." So it depends on what circumstances.

[infinity.]

well obviously there is need no need for anything,
only dependence and accustomed actions
and wants obviously,

the only use for a phrase with need would be to stress importance or degree of desire

but this is common knowledge, right?

[Raveren]

To respond to both Sully and After Dawn, both of your points balance on that life is an obligation and necessity. However, life is both a privilege and a choice. As I mentioned earlier, a vast majority of any living being has the natural urge to strive to live. Death is a viable option for any single one of those beings, however in our perception, the consequence is too drastic for any of our desire.

Let's flip the situation around from wanting to live to being willing to die. Imagine someone is being brutally tortured. Tortured to the point the pain to be endured from continuing life would be overwhelming, and this person wants to die. This person is one who has chosen a completely different option than what comes naturally to the rest of the population, however this option is still a choice to him as to anyone else.

The desire to live is naturally installed in all of us, but ultimately, we have a choice between life and death just as much as we have a choice to look left or right.

Originally Posted by Infinity.

but this is common knowledge, right?

Unfortunately no :/

[Xx{Midday}xX]

Wants have collateral obligations. There are many cases where, if you want something, something else has to happen. That is a need in the process of achieving a want. You cannot obtain what you want to obtain without obligating yourself to certain consequences. Therefore, a "need" can also be defined as the necessity/obligation to do something for a wanted cause or a desired effect.

I only read the OP.

EDIT: Wow. I actually did something productive in CT. Thanks Raveren. I always believed I was too insufficient as an intellect to be here.

[Raveren]

Originally Posted by Xx{Midday}xX

Wants have collateral obligations. There are many cases where, if you want something, something else has to happen. That is a need in the process of achieving a want. You cannot obtain what you want to obtain without obligating yourself to certain consequences. Therefore, a "need" can also be defined as the necessity/obligation to do something for a wanted cause or a desired effect.

I like it your final definition. Though the want can be altered or chosen, there are specific requirements to achieve said wants. This means that a need is only an intermediary between what you desire, which, now that I reflect back on it, totally upsets my theory. The basic difference is whether there is one option or two. There are always at least two options between what you want (ex: Life and Death), but there are requirements to achieve either (breathing or not breathing).

What I had focused on did not consider something as an intermediary. What I ran through my mind was "I want to breathe so I can live". However, it could also be said "I want to live", which means I would have to breathe.

It all depends on whether you are looking at something as the goal for a goal or the requirements for said goal. Thanks Midday.

[Tokzic]

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".

[Afrombean]

Originally Posted by Raveren

"I need a new pair of socks."

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.

"I need to breathe."

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.

Breathing is a necessity for life, but it's only because one wants to live

Ok then, how about this:

I need to breathe [to remain living].

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"

[TC_Halogen]

Wow, I like this topic. First time posting in CT, by the way (thanks for making a topic that I can REALLY think about!)

Alright, so let's circulate this thought again:

Originally Posted by Raveren

Need: An obligation, necessity, or requirement.
Want: To desire, crave, or demand.

It can be argued that there is absolutely no needs in life, (mentioned before; living by breathing, but breathing by choice, even though it is necessary to live.) but I disagree with that aspect. I figure that, regardless of minor details that make every necessity seem to have an option for wanting, you have to take a few things into account.

Let's go back to the breathing to live argument. As a living being, you do NEED to breathe to survive (in most general cases, I mean there is life support; again, another loophole.), but it is your choice to do breathe. Given that you need to breathe to survive, you do it; however, if you pass on (death) due to some other circumstance, breathing is no longer a necessity for you.

What I'm getting at is this: even if some of the things we do are self-consciously done, they are self-consciously done to survive.

(I hope this was a decent post, first post in CT, mentioned before. )

[Lipidman]

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]

Originally Posted by Raveren

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.

Originally Posted by Tokzic

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

Originally Posted by Afrombean

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]]

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

[TC_Halogen]

Originally Posted by kommisar[os]

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.

Originally Posted by perkeyone

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

I think it's relevant. This was said:

Originally Posted by Lipidman

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]

Originally Posted by TC_Halogen

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