On "need" And "want"

[Koyote]

Need is defined by survival. Other than that, it's a compultion (here, pen compultion). Hear me well: this is not a moral statment, but rather a facual one. Need is not that much a subjective matter.

 

You talk about desire as a necessity of human life: of course it is. But to say it's necessary to progress and motivation is rather dubious, or at least a cultural bias. "Progress" would have to be defined (wouldn't moral progress try to put a lilit to desire, as both stoïcian and epicurian morals says?), and it's a notion that comes rather late in human history as a positive one.

 

This being said, there is nothing wrong with desire, as long as you know that these desire are yours and don't make you miserable.

 

If you are asserting this as a fact, perhaps you should provide a proof and/or evidence?

Edited January 3, 2013 by Koyote

[Beechwood]

.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Beechwood

[humblescribbler]

It's like baseball cards or something I guess, but more interesting (to me).

 

Doug

 

"Got it, got it, got it, want it, got it, got it, got it, want it, want it, need it, need it, need it, got it, got it, need it, need it, need it, got it, got it, got it."

 

Thanks for the memory hit!

[eric47]

In economics, we don't even use the terms "need" and "want," since it is impossible to distinguish between them.

And perhaps that's a reason why economics sometimes gives flawed results with such issues?

 

People simply have demands or desires.

In real life or in a particular theory.

 

Like many distinctions (that aren't say mathematical or logical), need v. want is messy one. But is it really "impossible to distinguish them"? Or is it a matter of it's being difficult to distinguish and define them in a clear cut way (no gray areas) that aligns with a theory at stake, our pre-theoretical notions of where things should fall, etc. That a distinction is difficult to cut cleanly doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Important distinctions rarely cut cleanly. While I'm not familiar with the economic demands v. desires distinction, I suspect it doesn't cut cleanly either even if constructed, contrived, or intended as simplifying one.

 

I don't have any difficulty in considering say water as a (shared/common) need for human beings; for without it we would die. Weird to call it a "demand" in the everyday sense of the term. Owning a Ferrari to drive 2 blocks to work prima facie isn't a need for most people and is probably a want or desire. But I imagine contexts can be found where it might very well be a need, although still not a need, a sine qua non, on a par with say water. Existence of gray areas in between doesn't negate that a distinction is there.

 

Aside from say some basic common needs, e.g. water, (primary needs perhaps one might say) I don't have a problem with needs varying from individual to individual. A carpenter for may very well need high quality tools. Whereas for me such things may be only something I want; for I use tools occasionally and not for a living. These these non-primary needs' -- insofar as we call them needs -- status as needs may not through time.

[Koyote]

You mention water, others may mention hunger, and those are sensations. The manner in which those sensations are satisfied is a matter of demand/desire/want. The point is this: the terms "need" and "want" (or more to the point, the concepts, or the feelings of needing/wanting) are subjective. Different people will attempt to satisfy those sensations in different ways.

 

To approach a different facet of this issue: There is ample evidence demonstrating that, in affluent societies (and by virtue of regularly being on the internet, most of us are in those societies) there is very little relationship between higher incomes and consumption, on the one hand, and higher happiness on the other hand. This is because, for the vast majority in these societies, those things that most people consider "needs" are securely satisfied: we all have enough food, water, shelter. So, to try to distinguish between needs and wants is pointless, as most of us are merely trying to figure out what to do with our vast riches. This is how we end up on a hedonic treadmill, constantly feeling (what we perceive as) "needs" for things that, a mere generation ago, didn't even exist in the imagination. The culture - in no small measure, aided by marketers -- creates these "needs" in order to keep the economic machine running and the profits flowing. So, rather than working 15 hour weeks (which would today allow us to have as much material stuff as typical Americans had in the 1950s, when they reported their highest happiness levels), we are compelled to work as much or more than our parents did back then in order to buy more stuff which does not, to much measurable degree, create any more happiness.

 

And make no mistake: compared to the vast majority of the people who have walked this planet, we are incredibly affluent. To talk about rich westerners as if they have unmet "needs" is an insult to the billions on our planet who live in true poverty, and is an insult to the memories of our ancestors who did actually have to struggle for survival.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Koyote

[Lloyd]

We all need distractions. Our non-necessary wants are for things to distract ourselves. If pens were abolished, most here would become infatuated with another pseudo-necessary distraction.

[equill]

"Need" is the first half of a split clause, as I see it. The other half is "...in order to..."

(Linguists may lambaste my misusage of terminology at will; I'll be happy to be set straight on the correct phrasing)

 

I need oxygen in order to continue living.

I need a pen in order to articulate my thoughts in writing.

I need an elegantly-designed pen, great paper and the perfect ink in order to really do it in style.

 

...suddenly, it's the goals that get ranked according to importance, instead of their means. In my profession, this is referred to as "moving the lump," but sometimes it's a useful approach nonetheless, because it gets the lump to where it really belongs.

[Laura N]

Well, for me it's not theoretical -- though I love these discussions -- but practical.

 

I am in a different stage than most, I know. We have three kids from 12 to 17. As parents, one of the things you find yourself teaching your children is restraint. From the time they are born, you have to teach them not to do certain things -- for example, don't stick baby fingers in an electrical socket. As they age, there is also material restraint. Some kids seem to want everything, or see their friends getting everything, and as a parent you just find yourself dealing with these issues. At least, my husband and I do. And for us, we are now entering a stage of heavy child-rearing expenditure that enforces material restraint. You start to think about paying as much as $250,000 per kid for college, in addition to everything else, and it's staggering.

 

So, purely as a day-to-day practical matter, when I think about "need," it's a whole category other than the wonderful things that I want and that enhance my life. I don't expect anyone else to share that point of view, though.

 

And my distinction between need and want doesn't mean I don't spent on wants. I love to have fun, and I appreciate nice things, and I overindulge in both. But I think of them as splurges, I guess. I enjoy every bit of life, especially things that are just fun, or just beautiful. In writing about this now, I wonder if it's possible that I enjoy these things even more because they aren't "needs" to me, but special gifts?

 

In any case, we all have different ways of looking at things, and I love that. Coming into contact with others' different perspectives has enriched my life immensely.

[Namo]

Need is defined by survival. Other than that, it's a compultion (here, pen compultion). Hear me well: this is not a moral statment, but rather a facual one. Need is not that much a subjective matter.

 

You talk about desire as a necessity of human life: of course it is. But to say it's necessary to progress and motivation is rather dubious, or at least a cultural bias. "Progress" would have to be defined (wouldn't moral progress try to put a lilit to desire, as both stoïcian and epicurian morals says?), and it's a notion that comes rather late in human history as a positive one.

 

This being said, there is nothing wrong with desire, as long as you know that these desire are yours and don't make you miserable.

 

If you are asserting this as a fact, perhaps you should provide a proof and/or evidence?

 

If your are refering to the progress thing, well, if you look at the XVIIth centry in England, jus before the so called Glorious revoulution, the fact that James the 1st claimed all political powers (around 1610 if my memory serves me well) was perceived as a dangerous innovation. What was valued was resect for traditions (in this case, power was mutiple, with traditionnal and local powers and not onyl one centralized power). What was "new" was suspect. The same thing can be say for art: it's only when Baudelaire theorized "modernity" that the New was conceived as something noteworthy, interessting, valued.

 

I don't know if this is proof, but in the history of ideas (and values are but ideas), this point is very well etablished.

 

Hope I answered your question.

[bphollin]

I appreciate the discussion in this thread very much, but I have trouble framing it within the contexts of "need" and "want." For me, it is more a question of "like." I think we all recognize that owning fountain pens and participating in a fountain pen forum is something of a luxury. I make a living by writing, researching, teaching, and grading. A fountain pen is an excellent tool for that and it brings me great satisfaction whilst doing my job. It is by no means required, though.

 

Since Doug mentioned Lamy Safari collectors, I felt that I could contribute in that regard. I like the Lamy Safari/Vista/AL-Star/Joy pens very much. I like the way they write (and the ones that don't are easily tuned up), I like the way they fit in my hand, I like the way they hold up in my briefcase bag, and I like the price point. My first "real" fountain pen was a Lamy Al-Star, and while I didn't love everything about it, I liked it enough to buy a Safari, and I liked that enough to buy a few more. When I sold a few off because I thought I had too many, I felt regret. I've built my collection over a few years, and I really like it. I like the way it looks, I like taking pictures of it, and I like sharing my experiences with other enthusiasts.

 

I do not feel a Pokeman or Beanie Baby compulsion to catch 'em all. I do not feel overwhelmed without my Lamys, nor do I feel anxiety that I don't own them all. For example, I am missing a Terracotta (see below!) and a few other known production pens and one-offs. I would like to own them to complete my collection, but not at any cost. In the last few months, I've seen another early model Safari sell on eBay for $300+ and then $500+ dollars. Obviously someone needed, wanted, or liked it enough to pick it up at those prices. That's a lot of money for me for one pen, and as much as I liked it, I didn't like it that much. I don't lose sleep knowing I don't have a full set. I may never track some of them down, and that's fine too. Truth be told, I'd rather pick up a few here and a few there over the course of a number of years than buy them all at once. I like the hunt, too.

 

In addition to liking the pens, I also like contributing to a community. I thought I had something to say about the Lamy 2000 family that hadn't been said before, so I wrote a lot about it last summer. It was a great satisfaction for me to do the job of information gathering, writing, editing, taking pictures and videos, formatting, posting the article, and reading feedback. It was met with a good reception here and elsewhere in the pen-o-sphere. I am working on some follow-up sections, too. I go along with the jokes when people point and laugh at the Lamy guy. Replace that with MB Writers, "51"s, Esterbrooks, or what-have-you. So long as it is healthy, I don't see the harm. I can't afford to collect the MB Writers (as much as I'd like to own some), but I really felt a great satisfaction when goodguy posted his complete series review some years ago. I love seeing christof's photography, Bill's great Targa collection, Jar's trays of varied beauties, or Ether'x's latest Nakaya.

 

For me, this is a hobby of enjoyment. I also post on a wet shaving community, and it strikes me as odd that some guys own twenty different kinds of soaps and a shelf full of shaving brushes. I just like shaving and want a few good tools to do it. I wonder what they would say about my ink stash and pile of pens... I own a few modest but nice watches, and can't quite fathom guys with tens of thousands of dollars in watches. In the end, I think it comes down to people liking what they like.

 

I like Lamys and I like reading about what other people like, too.

Edited January 3, 2013 by bphollin

[Koyote]

Need is defined by survival. Other than that, it's a compultion (here, pen compultion). Hear me well: this is not a moral statment, but rather a facual one. Need is not that much a subjective matter.

 

You talk about desire as a necessity of human life: of course it is. But to say it's necessary to progress and motivation is rather dubious, or at least a cultural bias. "Progress" would have to be defined (wouldn't moral progress try to put a lilit to desire, as both stoïcian and epicurian morals says?), and it's a notion that comes rather late in human history as a positive one.

 

This being said, there is nothing wrong with desire, as long as you know that these desire are yours and don't make you miserable.

 

If you are asserting this as a fact, perhaps you should provide a proof and/or evidence?

 

If your are refering to the progress thing, well, if you look at the XVIIth centry in England, jus before the so called Glorious revoulution, the fact that James the 1st claimed all political powers (around 1610 if my memory serves me well) was perceived as a dangerous innovation. What was valued was resect for traditions (in this case, power was mutiple, with traditionnal and local powers and not onyl one centralized power). What was "new" was suspect. The same thing can be say for art: it's only when Baudelaire theorized "modernity" that the New was conceived as something noteworthy, interessting, valued.

 

I don't know if this is proof, but in the history of ideas (and values are but ideas), this point is very well etablished.

 

Hope I answered your question.

 

 

I was referring to the part of your post which I highlighted: if you are asserting as fact that "need" is not a subjective matter, you should offer a logical proof and/or supporting evidence. As near as I can tell, your post, above, about 17th century England, is off-topic.

 

In other words, to assert is not to prove.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Koyote

[XiaoMG]

After reading this thread, I need to stop myself from posting a reply.

 

Oops.

[ethernautrix]

Bamboo leans with wind,

compelled by a need to sing;

I am the pen's wind.

 

I'm only starting to read this conversation. Lovely response, ronw. Thank you.

[Namo]

Need is defined by survival. Other than that, it's a compultion (here, pen compultion). Hear me well: this is not a moral statment, but rather a facual one. Need is not that much a subjective matter.

 

You talk about desire as a necessity of human life: of course it is. But to say it's necessary to progress and motivation is rather dubious, or at least a cultural bias. "Progress" would have to be defined (wouldn't moral progress try to put a lilit to desire, as both stoïcian and epicurian morals says?), and it's a notion that comes rather late in human history as a positive one.

 

This being said, there is nothing wrong with desire, as long as you know that these desire are yours and don't make you miserable.

 

If you are asserting this as a fact, perhaps you should provide a proof and/or evidence?

 

If your are refering to the progress thing, well, if you look at the XVIIth centry in England, jus before the so called Glorious revoulution, the fact that James the 1st claimed all political powers (around 1610 if my memory serves me well) was perceived as a dangerous innovation. What was valued was resect for traditions (in this case, power was mutiple, with traditionnal and local powers and not onyl one centralized power). What was "new" was suspect. The same thing can be say for art: it's only when Baudelaire theorized "modernity" that the New was conceived as something noteworthy, interessting, valued.

 

I don't know if this is proof, but in the history of ideas (and values are but ideas), this point is very well etablished.

 

Hope I answered your question.

 

 

I was referring to the part of your post which I highlighted: if you are asserting as fact that "need" is not a subjective matter, you should offer a logical proof and/or supporting evidence. As near as I can tell, your post, above, about 17th century England, is off-topic.

 

In other words, to assert is not to prove.

 

Well, stating historical facts, well documented with offical and contemporary to the event documents is not asserting. "As near as I can tell" - well, how near is that? From what you say afterward, it's rather far from anything.

 

As the question of the non subjective aspect of need: it's at least an anthropological fact: every human in every society needs to feed in oorder to survive. So, you can always say it's not a factual human matter, but this will not prevent you to die if you stop eating and drinking. So: not subjective.

[eric47]

You mention water, others may mention hunger, and those are sensations. The manner in which those sensations are satisfied is a matter of demand/desire/want. The point is this: the terms "need" and "want" (or more to the point, the concepts, or the feelings of needing/wanting) are subjective. Different people will attempt to satisfy those sensations in different ways.

 

A bit of old terminology but the first statement commits a bit of a category error. Water is a stuff, a compound, it's not a (human) sensation like hunger at all. Thirst is a sensation on a par with hunger. Human beings need water to live; if you want something hard as proof, then science and biology tell us that. While it's true that humans can drink to alleviate the feeling of thirst, that's way too basic to generalize the notion of human's needing water to survive/live.

 

To regard all desires, wants, needs, or these "demands" as akin to "satisfying the sensation of hunger" is rather simplified way of regarding matters. Even one of the greatest so-called "desire-based" ethicists and value theorists in history, Hume, recognized that. At the very least something like hunger or thirst are tied to (under normal operating conditions) basic human needs (or your demands) for live; for without sufficient sort of nutrients and water we will die just as biology tells. There's very room to move on that; they're not subjective (in one sense of the term). In contrast more fine-grained and robust desires and wants, e.g. a desire to be first on the moon, wanting to drink a can of paint, have way more behind in terms of valuations*, etc. and are not usually so tied to survival and life. (*and if you want you enter into another minefield of value theory with debates of the truth (or not) of value statements, the source of value, etc.)

 

"Subjective" is another loaded term. And if you want to try to distinguish that from "objective" or even "non-subjective", then again you'll need to define your terms. Depending on how "subjective" is defined and the context in which it's used, some (human) needs aren't subjective at all, e.g. the need the water.

 

Do you mean something like varies from subject (person) to subject? Some don't, like the need for water. And some do. That on it's own may or may not be such a big deal depending on your value theory. For on some theories, allowing that "subjective" variance doesn't mean anything goes. Wanting to torture babies for fun, can on some theories count as a mistaken, deviants, etc. (or something like that). If you will this is equill's "moving the lump" (if I understood his/her point correctly) in another guise.

Edited January 3, 2013 by eric47

[Avetikus]

I'm still stuck on the epiphany of

 

".. want must have.. "

 

Never shun your id. It is better acknowledged, subsumed, integrated.

 

And if your place in the hierarchy allows you to be on a board discussing niche writing instruments, then I'm sure you can afford to indulge your id in a little wanton ink-splashing. Once in awhile.

 

cheers!

 

 

-Av

[sumgaikid]

There may be pens that I would like to have,but I realize that if I

simply can't afford them,I have to let them pass by--and I've let many

things pass by for that very reason. It doesn't lessen the desire to

own and use them,it just means that reality(for me,anyway) sets in

and I have to let that pen go. If there's a chance to get another

type of the same later on and I can afford to do so,I'll get it. Other-

wise,I wait and enjoy using what I do have.

 

 

John

[mmkoenecke]

It may be my background in biology, but need has always meant "necessary for survival" to me. I could live without fountain pens as I could live without a computer, television, dog, etc. However, these bring me joy so they are prioritized accordingly relative to other wants. Yes, desire is a key part of life. But when it really comes down to it, I need food, water, and shelter. Everything else is a bonus. But sometimes that viewpoint makes me feel really lucky to enjoy all that I do.

 

Again, that may be my heavy biology background showing through, but I thought that it might be a perspective worth mentioning since a lot of philosophical viewpoints have already been voiced.

[raging.dragon]

[...] But what kind of life is it if all you had was what you strictly, bare-bones needed? [...]

 

Such a life would be nasty, brutish, and short.

[Dioxazine]

I don't need pens, but I nnnneeeeeEEEEEEEdddd them. You know.

 

If I didn't have a scribble stick, I'd go crazy.

 

In order to not go crazy and flip out, I need at least a Hero 616 and a big bottle of thin ink - like a black ink at 50%. Or maybe less, just a scribble stick and ink that I can see that won't smudge or print off like graphite does. And a great big heap of paper that's not too absorbent.

 

And I'm happy.

 

I could probably sniff out some thread, scissors, push pin/awl, a metal spoon or something, scrap cloth, and a needle that I could curve, and then I could make the paper into notebooks. I'm a pretty good scavenger. I have few needs.

 

Note: I am no longer physically capable of using Rapidographs, RBs, or BPs

Edited February 9, 2013 by Dioxazine