For me, there are four things that count as needs:

-Water
-Food
-Shelter
-Medication — Shawn

You forgot social acceptance. As a social species, human beings need social interactions. Many people will do almost anything to get attention from others. Attention from others would qualify as "medication" for their low self esteem.

I tend to believe that biology is the source of our needs and our wants (art, politics, etc.) etc. are cultural manifestations of our biological needs.

I think, what you're really saying is that preferences dictate the attainment of needs. Is that correct?

If so, then I don't believe that we are all created equal in that regard. I mean by this the fact that some people have it handed down to them as to what they can entertain as desirable in terms of monetary gain or financial disposition.

Would you agree with that?

Beyond that, we will always have a tension of existence, or a constant life of striving. We are hard wired to never be satisfied. When one need is met, another takes it's place. Think about if we were not hardwired to have wants and needs, what would that look like? — 3017amen

How does one counter the need for more wants, when all one's needs have been fulfilled and satisfied?

↪A Seagull

And, philosophy! — Shawn

lol

How does one counter the need for more wants, when all one's needs have been fulfilled and satisfied? — Shawn

We can't. It's another unresolved paradox about the human condition. Something beyond logic. Kind of like the Heraclitus quote: "Change is the only constant in life.".

You see, life is not very logical. One must learn to embrace paradox, or become totally disillusioned by the need to lie to oneself over same.

Perhaps another question to consider there would be, is that then, a want, or a need? In other words, should we lie to ourselves out of a want or need for something; to protect us from something?

Cognitive science is fascinating, no?

We can't. — 3017amen

But, the question itself contains the answer! Isn't that awesome?

If one asks, why do I want more, then doesn't that indicate that one has all their needs met???

Very Nice, oh great one!

Or, could that be, that we are no longer human then???

Yet another question could be, why do I wonder whether my wants and needs should be met?

Yet another question could be, why do I wonder whether my wants and needs should be met? — 3017amen

Are you saying that we strive for more because it is what we want?

Isn't that depressingly circular?

Very Nice, once again! Very Existential I must say!!!!

How can we escape this....do we distract ourselves with pain/pleasure...or do we seek meaning some how...or do we engage in intellectual pursuits...or do we engage with each other...or... .

Is life dynamically circular-as apposed to static(?) In other words, I'm trying to picture life without the need to have wants and needs...

Is life dynamically circular-as apposed to static(?) In other words, I'm trying to picture life without the need to have wants and needs... — 3017amen

I think the correct response is to treat the issue with moderation. Meaning that one will always want things, but as to remain realistic as to never endanger what one already has in terms of his or her needs met.

Playing it safe??

What would endangerment entail?

Confusion of wants with needs along with shifting ones priority from an unmet need to a want.

Shit happens all the time I suppose. Wishful thinking etc. Really sad that we do this all the time.

There's a reason they put snack bars at the end of ones shopping routine.

I contest that there is a strict dichotomy here, a need is fundamentally different than a want. Wants are like superlatives stemming from a mis-characterization of a need in disguise. — Shawn

Yes they are different. There are good reasons why we make distinctions between them.
But accepting that doesn't necessarily move us closer to understanding your question about how needs get to be confused with desires.

Problems like substance abuse, for example, are not solved by saying things like: "Snap out of it, you don't need that cocaine."

Yes they are different. There are good reasons why we make distinctions between them.
But accepting that doesn't necessarily move us closer to understanding your question about how needs get to be confused with desires. — Valentinus

And, that seems to be a big issue in my view. To take two diametrically opposing things and then mix up their importance is an issue because, well... they are different in nature, no?

Problems like substance abuse, for example, are not solved by saying things like: "Snap out it, you don't need that cocaine." — Valentinus

Yeah, that's a hard one. But, a good start is realizing that one doesn't need them, even though they get fraught as needs in many cases, don't you think?

And, that seems to be a big issue in my view. To take two diametrically opposing things and then mix up their importance is an issue because, well... they are different in nature, no? — Shawn

There are ways to present them as "diametrically" different. There are ways to approach the differences as parts of various psychological frameworks. For myself, the value of any approach is ultimately phenomenological. Am I getting closer to what is going on?

Yeah, that's a hard one. But, a good start is realizing that one doesn't need them, even though they get fraught as needs in many cases, don't you think? — Shawn

Every addict already knows they don't "need" it. Every addict also knows they do. Finding the leverage point to apply a pry bar in the situation is about finding resources and potential for change.

For myself, the value of any approach is ultimately phenomenological. Am I getting closer to what is going on? — Valentinus

In terms of living a more stable and fulfilling life I treat the difference between wants and needs as almost imperative. Is this Kantian in nature?

Every addict already knows they don't "need" it. Every addict also knows they do. Finding the leverage point to apply a pry bar in the situation is about finding resources and potential for change. — Valentinus

I suppose the issue here is that the addict thinks they need it, and the realization that they don't. I suspect a profound change is required for one to accustom oneself to boredom or find some new outlet in terms of a release from stressors.

I don't think deciding why people are addicted, as presented by your remark about stressors, will advance the methods to help them.
You want to separate every bodies' problem as the result of incorrect stuff they think. That sort of thing is surely involved.
But don't stand in a temple and tell others how it must be.

I don't think deciding why people are addicted, as presented by your remark about stressors, will advance the methods to help them.
You want to separate every bodies' problem as the result of incorrect stuff they think. That sort of thing is surely involved.
But don't stand in a temple and tell others how it must be. — Valentinus

Well, a good starting point is asking as an addict, why does one think they need it? Some insight needed I suppose?

I think, what you're really saying is that preferences dictate the attainment of needs. Is that correct?

If so, then I don't believe that we are all created equal in that regard. I mean by this the fact that some people have it handed down to them as to what they can entertain as desirable in terms of monetary gain or financial disposition.

Would you agree with that? — Shawn

Yes, one's preferences do decide what are needs and what are wants but the list of needs in your OP represents a universal truth insofar as needs are concerned.

For me, there are four things that count as needs:

-Water
-Food
-Shelter
-Medication

...whilst the rest remain as wants. But, here is a question to the reader:

When I have satisfied all my needs, then should my focus shift towards the entertainment of wants? How do you go about satisfying wants if all your needs are met? — Shawn

I think our systemic needs are more basic than this. We don’t need food, shelter and medication as such, but we do need the availability of nutrition as a supply of energy, vitamins and minerals as well as water and resources to regulate energy use and make repairs, in order to sustain the most basic chemical processes of the organism. But if survival is our goal, then even satisfying this list can sustain us only for a time, and simultaneously fail to fully ‘satisfy’ what may be a more fundamental impetus to life. I think this is why we decide to upgrade certain wants to the level of ‘need’: because we don’t really understand what it is that we still need. It’s a guessing game, almost.

Our system isn’t structured to maximise survival, or even dominance. In my view, it’s structured to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration instead. This is evidenced by a demonstrated capacity to access, process and integrate complex information and build elaborate environmental and social structures that can incorporate, imitate and collaborate with everything with which we interact. It’s also evidenced by a demonstrated capacity to prioritise these complex processes above striving to meet even this ‘basic’ list of needs, sometimes to the point of death, without necessarily understanding why.

Yes, one's preferences do decide what are needs and what are wants but the list of needs in your OP represents a universal truth insofar as needs are concerned. — TheMadFool

Something about it feels very Kantian in my view. I don't know how else to put it.

But if survival is our goal, then even satisfying this list can sustain us only for a time, and simultaneously fail to fully ‘satisfy’ what may be a more fundamental impetus to life — Possibility

Conflating the two is the issue, no?

Our system isn’t structured to maximise survival, or even dominance. In my view, it’s structured to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration instead. — Possibility

How can this be true? Are you saying the are social instinct overrides the desire to survive. Yes, this seems to be true in regards to some of human behavior to sacrifice ourselves for the "greater good", whatever that may-be.

It’s also evidenced by a demonstrated capacity to prioritise these complex processes above striving to meet even this ‘basic’ list of needs, sometimes to the point of death, without necessarily understanding why. — Possibility

How do you explain that fact? Why is it that rational behavior as defined in economics or elsewhere in sociology is defined as utility maximization. This all seems superficial and overly simplified in my view.

Something about it feels very Kantian in my view. I don't know how else to put it. — Shawn

Needs and wants - to the extent that the wants of some are satisfied by using others as a means to that end, in the process preventing the needs of those who serve as the means from being met - are Kantian.

Please elaborate.

Please elaborate. — Shawn

One of Kant's moral maxims is to never treat another person solely as a means to an end or to treat other people, just as you consider yourself to be, as ends in themselves.

Ergo, people are fully justified to satisfy their needs and wants, just as you are. To then use people only as a means to satisfy your needs or wants (which is worse since it's like killing not for food but for fun) you would be violating a Kantian moral code.

Think of slavery: white slave owners had their needs fulfilled and slaves were nothing more than a means (since the needs of slaves were ignored) to satisfy the wants of the slavemasters.

Our system isn’t structured to maximise survival, or even dominance. In my view, it’s structured to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration instead.
— Possibility

How can this be true? Are you saying the are social instinct overrides the desire to survive. Yes, this seems to be true in regards to some of human behavior to sacrifice ourselves for the "greater good", whatever that may-be. — Shawn

What I’m saying is that the structural model we use is inaccurate, and fails to account for anomalies. It isn’t that ‘social instinct’ overrides ‘survival instinct’, but that the ‘instinct’ model itself needs to be overhauled in order to understand the relation. The way I see it, a six-dimensional model of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion has the capacity to explain the underlying impetus to atomic, molecular, chemical, biological, social and mental relations or structures, including abiogenesis, evolution and consciousness.

How do you explain that fact? Why is it that rational behavior as defined in economics or elsewhere in sociology is defined as utility maximization. This all seems superficial and overly simplified in my view. — Shawn

Because value systems are relative and isolated by structures such as language, logic, emotion, morals and beliefs. Sociology separates these value systems and examines each one with regard to human behaviour, but rarely in relation to each other, and usually below the level of subjective experience. Because the Uncertainty Principle applies at this complex level of potentiality/value.

And constraining the sociological view is this ignorant assumption based on Darwinian evolutionary theory and our most basic fears: that the ‘purpose’ of life is to survive, to procreate and ultimately to dominate.

There is a hypothetical relational structure that encompasses an ‘objective’ view of all possible existence - that’s what we’re ideally striving to figure out. But it’s easier to assume the relational structure we’ve built so far is complete, and simply ignore, isolate or exclude any conflicting information.

I want what I need but I don’t know what I need.

I could go tail chasing over this, but I think that about sums it up?

Take salt, fat and sugar. We crave them because in evolutionary terms they were scarce in nature. Now we practically have them on tap, but we still need them, but the demand doesn’t balance with the availability anymore.

It would be a wonderful thing if we all spent more time trying to train ourselves to ‘educate’ ourselves. The conundrum is ‘learning’ hurts at first so we have a tendency to avoid its initial humiliating punch in the face ... I guess that is what makes life both interesting though, just takes time to suffer enough and appreciate suffering for SOMETHING. The ‘something’ could literally be anything; that’s all our problems :D

I want what I need but I don’t know what I need.

I could go tail chasing over this, but I think that about sums it up? — I like sushi

And, the converse too!

Take salt, fat and sugar. We crave them because in evolutionary terms they were scarce in nature. Now we practically have them on tap, but we still need them, but the demand doesn’t balance with the availability anymore. — I like sushi

Hence, what do you mean by this, as I feel it's an important point.

I guess that is what makes life both interesting though, just takes time to suffer enough and appreciate suffering for SOMETHING. — I like sushi

Isn't this a tad bit sado-masochistic? I don't see the point of wanting something if the means to get it is fraught with suffering...

@Shawn

I meant now we have enough salt, fat and sugar we nevertheless still possess the desire to glut on it. Our cravings for something hard to come by and essential to life makes sense, yet once it becomes easily acquired we need to stem that urge or possibly suffer ill-health.

Sado-masochistic? Not at all. The most important things in life come at a cost. Learning that is a less painful path than not learning it as far as I can tell. We view pain as a lesson sometimes and others as something to avoid and guide us to something ‘better’.

Of course I’m suggesting people chop their arms off or anything. Fear is a great guide. If you fear something, step up to it. Most fear disguises itself as humiliation or guilt, and not learning how to navigate these emotions is immediately less painful. Facing up to yourself and accepting your flaws and shortcomings as a human being is a painful and necessary business in my experience. Ignoring it is MUCH worse in the long run.

Think about something simple like learning algebra. At first it is frustrating and makes you feel stupid and useless (that is painful), but once you bring your urges to ‘give up’ under control and harness yourself you’re met with a literal rush. Learning your limits is essential to living a good life, and learning your limits is painful if you over or under step - which we all do. It’s tough to train yourself and task that never ends (at least not for me!). It’s also a joy too.

Insert several dozen pithy sayings here if you wish. I’m not one for aphorisms myself as they tend to be more interested in surface details rather than plumbing the depths of probable and possible.

There are always exceptions, expect when there are none! :D