:point:

@Hanover, will you take the gauntlet?

What do you mean by “identity consolidation”? — Congau

Now that I think about it, the term doesn't make much sense. I think, the term "reintegration" or "integration" is more apt here to say.

We are not likely to achieve certain knowledge about ourselves (or about anything else for that matter), we can only hope that our belief is not too far from the truth. — Congau

Why not? This strikes me as anti-psychologist. Is that what your getting at?

"It makes sense from a scientific perspective" does not mean it's science. It's pop-philosphy. — Echarmion

What makes you say that?

What I mean is that OP is treating game theory as a single idea by not specifying what game theory premise he claims to have disproven. That is why I said it doesn't make any sense. — Intermittent

Read my last post.

The universe and reality is a chess board with trillions of trillions of spaces on the board. — christian2017

Not really. Every game is inherently deterministic. Reality seems to have an element of non-determinism in it.

Science is based on phenomenology rather than metaphysics. Science deals with phenomena; in other words, science studies things as they appear to us. you can practice science regardless of what your metaphysical commitments, or lack of commitment, look like. — Janus

You can't exclude metaphysics from phenomenology, or can you...?

How?

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...

Agreed. Ignorance, isolation or exclusion of metaphysics is not scientific.

Having said that, science often attempts to conceal or constrain metaphysics (and thus uncertainty) within a limited value system. This means that those who interpret scientific explanations often remain ignorant, isolated or excluded from the metaphysical information available. — Possibility

It seems that Popper was staunchly against logical positivism without the anti-metaphysical attitude against it.

I want to understand why metaphysics as a structural issue is incompatible with science as we practice it today, despite metaphysical statements arising within it?

Please elaborate.

No one as of yet proved that the game of chess ends always in a draw by two perfect players. — MathematicalPhysicist

But, given that the game is deterministic, that's a plausible outcome for chess, if white doesn't have a natural advantage over black, yes?

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.

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.

When I think about all the sad and horrible things in the world, knowing I can't do anything about it except feel sad, I feel a sense of joy. It's hard to explain, but I find pleasure when I know things are truly hopeless. Does anyone else feel the same way? — Wheatley

Unfortunately, yes. It is a sad state of the world to point out the sadness of most inhabitants, be it a burning fawn in the forest, to a starving child in Africa.

But... nobody likes pity. It's a sad feeling; but, I think more people should feel it in a non-pejorative manner.

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?

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.

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?

But, one can always realize that they have their needs met by asking such questions as, 'What more do I want?' Yes?

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.

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??

Think about it this way... If my desire for more is confused with a need, then isn't that some form of trapping oneself in a manner of speech?

Or even differently, is the presupposition of "Why do I want more?" indicative of already having met needs?

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?

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???

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?

It's always appeared to me to be the same as "willing," although this may be more associated with the act of planning and goal-creation. In Schopenhauer this is the "will to live," in Nietzsche it's "will to power." In Buddhist philosophy, it's "desiring" in the sense of "craving." — Xtrix

It's a stipulative term to say that someone wants something, is it not? I am somewhat confused about the need for more, when it is apparent that it's a want.

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?

What do you mean by "explain"? Explain what, exactly? Desire? Wanting itself? Willing? — Xtrix

Yes, wanting, what makes people want more?

And, philosophy!

Yeah, they are a shelter; but, needs have to get done first, no?

It just dawned on me that there really is no difference between wants and needs, not at least in ways that would be surprising. — TheMadFool

Surely, there is a difference between the two, no? I outlined in the OP how they differ in terms of needs taking more of a priority of the will to entertain than wants.

I guess, I'm asking how much of a difference is there between the two, and you posit that it's not that big a deal. Or is it?

For the most part, we want what we need. The way they get mixed up with each other is important to learn about. — Valentinus

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

On a good day, the various responses to needing and wanting food are mixed up with other things. In that way, it is a relationship of relative factors and expectations balanced against other needs and desires. — Valentinus

This is where I differ. I believe that needs stand absolutely above wants, and are hence are not subject to any sense of relativity of absence. My desire for water and my need for it doesn't make a difference as the same amount of effort is required to maintain their replenishment.

I'm not the right person to answer this question. Sorry. — TheMadFool

Why? Don't you feel emotions?

I think the gist of the issue is that common feeling of insatiability manifest in "Can I have some more?"

Why do we ask for more?

What about emotions?

Hope all turns out well.

That would seem to be human nature to me...whether we SHOULD is different, but it seems to be human nature that once we don't worry about needs we find other things to occupy our minds...things we like or WANT in our lives. — ZhouBoTong

Yes! And, it is that facet of human nature that worries me. It is reckless and insatiable, and needs to be controlled. Would you agree with my pejorative here?

For sure. Instead of "I need food to live." It becomes "I need pizza for happiness." But if any amount of happiness is dependent on eating pizza, then I think "need" still works grammatically. — ZhouBoTong

Well, yes. Pragmatically, to interchange want and need seems fine and dandy; yet, it seems to me that there's an issue with treating something with such a strong propositional attitude, as a "need".

Can anyone chime in on the internalist account for the definition of a "need" contra a "want"?

As it is the most direct way (in our current world) of attaining the four needs you described, I would say yes as a shortcut. The long answer - we want money because it allows us to easily fulfill our needs. Or perhaps - Money is needed if I wish to obtain my needs without breaking the law? — ZhouBoTong

Yeah, it's interesting to note that the desire for money is often due to a want, and not a need, since needs are already de facto easily satisfied, given our socio-economics of satisfying wants.

What do you think?

relativity of absence. — Valentinus

Please expand on this term for me to understand it better.

Thanks.

Yeah, it's simple enough. So, what do you think is the issue here? The ego or what?

Have you considered the infamous Maslownian hierarchy of needs? — 3017amen

I have; but, on point would be the issue of self-realization. Is that an occurrence when a want gets transferred into a need, once fulfilled?

Change your name to 'The Threadmaker' pls — Evil

Negative, Sire. Shawn is what it is, and not gonna make further changes.

What can you do without?

Jesus is said to have claimed that one ought not treat others in a manner that they would not treat themselves.
— Shawn

No he didn't. He said to love others as much as yourself. — unenlightened

Sorry to get back to your post so late. I mean, one has to know how much they love themselves to be able to reciprocate it, don't they?