Love is NOT a Human Need (page 2)

jgnat

Take a good look at the homeless people walking down the sidewalk, mumbling to themselves. These are one type of people who do not receive the acknowledgement, acceptance, and touch that many of us say we need.

Even as evolved human beings above the apes, we still are hard wired for socialization. To miss it is to be aberrant and frankly, loopy.

I maintain that love is a human need. Even if some babies manage not to die without it. A good look at their brains will find them grossly underdeveloped compared to their mates who were loved, cuddled, and coooed at.

logansrun

I define human need very narrowly: Whatever you absolutely require to keep living is a need. That said, all humans share the basic, essential human needs. Of course, many humans think they need more than this and, in a self-fulfilling prophecy, they will feel depressed or even die. For example, many elderly persons die shortly after their mates death. But -- did their mate's death really cause them to die? No. It was the other mates belief about thier mate that had an emotional-biological impact on their lives that led to their death. They probably said something like, "I need my partner and if they die life is not worth living." That's too bad, but notice that it is their contructed belief system, not their mates death, which cause them to die.

Thought systems are changeable.

As for Maslow, I think he was somewhat right about many things, although many cognitive psychologists take issue with some of his theory. It also seems that Maslow used the word need loosly. His "self-esteem" or "love" "needs" really are better defined as wants and desires. And, many would say that one does not need to climb his ladder of "needs" to reach "self-actualization" (another rather fuzzy concept). Take again, Dr. Victor Frankl who would appear to have acheived "self-actualization" in a Nazi camp -- a place where even his safety needs were hardly met!

B.

logansrun

jgnat,

You are assuming that those homeless people are crazy because they don't have socialization and love. I think it's a safer bet to say they were crazy to begin with. Big confounding variable there.

And remember, adults are not babies. At least most of us aren't.

Bradley of the "I'm not as much of a badass as people think I am" class

logansrun

Well folks, I'll leave my rather Stoic thread to you all for the weekend. I've got to go to Kentucky for a wedding and will be away from the board.

With extremely little love in my heart,

B.

Billygoat

A good look at their brains will find them grossly underdeveloped compared to their mates who were loved, cuddled, and coooed at.

Awww come here Bradley. You just need a hug!

So if you say that these things are desires and not needs, then is my need to eat chocolate a need or a desire? What about my need for a Guiness? Need or desire?

Andi - just felt like stirring your pot today Bradley

Terry

But humans foolishly believe that they need more than that. They believe they need love, approval, affection, success, to be outstanding, etc. NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE HUMAN NEEDS! There have been plenty of people throughout history who have never had strong relationships with anyone. An extreme example are some hermits, monks and nuns. They go for years, some of them, without even really talking to anyone, let alone feeling and expressing "love" to individuals. (Though they may do this in their meditation and spiritual practice) And there have been people who have led happy lives without ever getting married, starting a family, being part of a group or even having a number of very close friends.

Well.........um, how do I say this? No. (There! That should work.)

Love is the highest value we place on something. Consequently we feel the strongest emotion for the thing valued.

None of us can go through any kind of bearable life without valuing something, now can we? No. Nor should we want to.

You seem to be saying we must avoid placing a HIGH value on something or we'd feel a HIGH emotion (loss) if the beloved were taken away. Okay. What does that get us?

To live is to experience life. If we shut out the highest experiences we are left with a pair of deuces and that won't win doodly squat in any cardgame worth playing.

It seems to me the more desirable way of making your point would be to reframe it.

The best life a person can live is a life of the highest values. It can be education, health, friendship, meaningful work and an interesting and productive purpose. Would you be better off being indifferent to these or experiencing them to the fullest by appraisal of their subsequent value?

When we say we "LOVE" another person we are saying we have inspected what they are, who they are and we have appraised the constitutency of their very being as the best of the best.

Do we NEED them in our life? Only if we crave excellence in our companions, our mentors, our peers and our intimates. We NEED to love only in so far as we need the very best in relationships. Why settle for less and call it a "want?"

I think you are missing the connection! This is a reflection of ill-considered philosophy, in my opinion. Not to nitpick you (I'm sure you'd never nitpick me) but, consider this.

1.When humans achieve something of value it boosts their self-esteem. Self esteem builds confidence. Confidence empowers us to raise our ambitions. Our ambition leads us to higher planes of endeavor. The highest endeavors bring the greatest rewards.

LOVE is the highest value.
Who is happiest? The man who loves his job or is indifferent? The man who loves his mate or who merely cohabits for pleasure and convenience?

2. The alternative to values would be WHIMS. Whims are arbitrary, capricious and ill-considered. Whims aren't long term goals but immediate, temporary and often injurious. (Due to being spur of the moment and ill-considered.)

LOVE, being the highest value, is never a short term consideration. It is an investment in the future and investments are always over time. The WHIM is a gamble.

3.The rational man is quite different from the irrational man. How so?

The rational man seeks positives. Love is a postive. The irrational man AVOIDS negatives. Love is never negative. Only whims which have been a gamble fail to pay.

4. Love is the desire to gain and enjoy and maintain long term. Fear is the desire to avoid and escape a DISvalue.

5.High achievers struggle to create value in their lives. Under achievers avoid blame and seek neutrality by failing to participate in the struggle against obstacles associated with gaining value.

6.The person who is ABLE TO LOVE seeks his equal. The man who fears the obligations of love seeks meaningless affairs to avoid the hollow taste of loneliness.

7.The person who seeks health actively engages in activity that has the higest health-value which produces the highest enjoyment of life. The fearful man is the hypochondriac obsessed with the negative side: avoiding sickness.

All kinds of persons are after something in their lives. But, it is their personal philosophy which determines what they end up with.

Achieving life is not the same as avoiding death.

Happiness is not the absence of pain nor intelligence the absence of stupidity.

In view of the above arguments I wish to conclude by saying this.

LOVE is the need of rational people.

It is the WANT of the fearful and irrational person.

No, I'm not calling you irrational or picking a brawl. I'm just asking you to reconsider your philosophical standard when posting a statement such as this.

LOVE IS A HUMAN NEED if the human wants the best life possible.

Terry

doogie

And remember, adults are not babies. At least most of us aren't.

by the by...am i reading your information right? did you just age -20 years or so?

With extremely little love in my heart,

i think that's fairly obvious. you should bring your post along and make it a toast at the wedding.

jgnat

OK, let's get back to basics then. Is it desireable for humans to reach their potential? Is survival adequate? If so, Logansrun, by your narrow definition, is it acceptable for a large portion of the human population to live their lives on the edge of starvation, because their "basic need" survival, has been met?

About the homeless people, I am talking not talking through my hat, here. I rub shoulders with the ones who got that way by way of insanity and those whose livestyle drove them insane. However they got that way, their quality of live is severely degraded not only by their struggle to take care of daily needs like food-water-shelter, but are further handicapped by lack of social interaction. All homeless people benefit from some loving attention. That tells me that love is not just an add-on like chrome to the car. It's like living without an alternator.

jgnat

Logansrun, you are on the run. You deflect. We study babies because they tell us a lot about what our basic needs are.

Senior's brains, too, atrophy from lack of stimulation. We can't just feed and house them. This tells me that more than food-water-shelter is required for us humans.

What if our more advanced brain structure demands this greater stimulation? We may consider this design as a flaw, as it can cut in to our survival rate. If longevity were the goal.

Big Dog

Right, live long and prosper Bradley. Say hello to Spock for all of us on your trip to Vulcan, er, I mean Kentucky (wink).

Love is NOT a Human Need

Share this