The myth of material wants and needs

IvoryBlackBishop

Contrary to popular misbelief, I would argue that the main driving forces of men and women, at least in 1st world countries are "higher mental" wants rather than pure material wants (such as the distinction between "absolute poverty", as in famine in 3rd world countries, rather than "relative" poverty, which doesn't account for actual financial planning or expenditures but is rather solely based on fixed income comparisons, as per economists such as Jolan Chang).

As an example, assuming a person could physically "survive" in a homeless shelter and have all of their basic material wants needed, or even have children despite having no income, a person could potentially meet all of their most basic "material" needs this way, much as how a person spending life in prison could have all of those basic needs met as well.

However, in 1st world countries, most of our wants and drives, even those we take for granted, are higher mental wants, whether money, possessions, education(s), careers, pasttimes, and things of those and that nature.

Even modern marriages are arguably a manifestation of 'higher mental wants' as well, in the sense of monogamous marriages and people having fewer children today, are a manifestation of a desire for 'quality' in a marriage, a partner, a family and so on.

As opposed to 'quantity', such as polygamy in 3rd world countries with high infant morality rate, which is more pragmatically effective if the goal is simply to "have children" or "have as many children as possible".

This, of course, is one reason that reduction of life purpose solely to 'marriage' and 'raising children', or deeming a culture on the whole as either 'life' or 'death' affirming on the basis of aggregate number of children is a flawed metric in many ways, and even this would be taking much of contemporary society, even including religious institutions for gratned; given that monogamy itself is a prioritization of higher mental wants and/or ideals above the purely physical ones.

And the radical and/or logical extreme of this argument would be making a case for polygamy and 3rd world marriage and/or parenting practices.

Hanover

As an example, assuming a person could physically "survive" in a homeless shelter and have all of their basic material wants needed, or even have children despite having no income, a person could potentially meet all of their most basic "material" needs this way, much as how a person spending life in prison could have all of those basic needs met as well. — IvoryBlackBishop

I don't understand how this reasoning suggests that first world people have higher mental wants than physical. It seems more reasonable to state that the reason the homeless and the incarcerated are unhappy is because they lack more luxurious physical possessions.

Your discussion about limiting children also points in the direction of first world people wanting more physical possessions so they therefore limit the financial burden of having more children.

I would also assume the move from polygamy has less to do with economic concerns than the move toward greater civil rights to women.

Qwex

I have a whole different definition, wants are a point and needs are a link. Try it out.

You point, want, to a part of your mind when you think or you link, need the experience.

And vice versa.

In the purest sense it is sense experience - then. You come at desire in two ways, want and need.

You'd think no wants are this definition but they are just complex algorthythms of the organism.

Possibility

↪IvoryBlackBishop

Do you think this observation appears to turn Maslow’s pyramid on its head?

IvoryBlackBishop

↪Possibility

That may vary - his pyramid is just an approximation, and not, in practice how each and every person actually behaves, nor "should" behave.

In practice, if a person was physically starving, or hit by a car and needed to go to the emergency room, then for most people, they would have to prioritize these physical needs, however in a 1st world countries, most of these physical needs are already met on a bare minimum level, and the vast majority of wants which people prioritize their time and or life around, are of the higher mental variety.

(As an example, you can look up the "Seninelese Tribe", which is one of the few remaining hunter-gatherer tribes, having lived and "survived" on stone-age era conditions for 10s of 1000s of years; the tradeoff seems to be that while they were able to survive this way without the direct need of many modern innovations, such as modern medicine, they also lack any immunity to modern diseases which modern medicines were designed in or as a result of, and as a result have to shut themselves off to Westerners; likewise they have no modern military technology, so in the event that a modern nation "invaded" them, I do not see how they would manage to resist it).

Or as another example, the philosophy behind some forms of "ascetism", such as Buddhist monks living a life of material austerity in order to seek out higher or transcendent ideals".

As far as psychology, I have never read Freud, however the basic notion of his "id-ego" concept is that the "id" (body) is akin to a horse, and the ego (mind) is akin to the rider or controller of the horse, so naturally the physical desires or the horse would be subordinate to the higher mental desires of the rider.

IvoryBlackBishop

↪Hanover

I would also assume the move from polygamy has less to do with economic concerns than the move toward greater civil rights to women.
[/quote]
Right, that's what I would tend to argue, if it was solely about "sex and reproduction", then from every pragmatic perspective then polygamy would be more desirable, since a man with 4 wives can potentially reproduce more children.

However, in 1st world countries, whether one invokes "religion" or invokes treastise on the law and or civilization such as John Stuart Mill, we consider monogamy to be a cultural evolution up from polygamy, with an emphasis on the better quality of marriages and relationships and better quality in raising children, rather than simply "maximizing" physical reproduction.

Gnomon

I would argue that the main driving forces of men and women, at least in 1st world countries are "higher mental" wants rather than pure material wants — IvoryBlackBishop

In his 1997 book, The Lucifer Principle, Howard Bloom made the same assertion in these terms : "poverty with prestige is better than affluent disgrace". By "prestige", he meant "pride".

He went on to say, "we assume that humans desire food, clothing, and shelter, but we forget that people crave something far more vital : status and prestige." He gave several examples, including Revolutionary Iran, and Islamic Terrorists. Although many of their people live in poverty, their motivation for attacking Western Civilization is not primarily economic, but because they blame Europe and US for Islamic decline from the prestige of the Ottoman Empire to the patchwork of backward Arab nations after WWII. Their leaders use that collective shame to inspire acts of self-sacrifice that defy Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Leviosa

↪IvoryBlackBishop

If you're reading a book and you get so into what your reading that you forget about the people and things around you, then surely you do not want anything more than what you're reading. Something occurs when someone gets so engaged into something. On wikapedia it's called 'the zone' . When you are in this condition (which can occur at any point of Maslows Pyramid) then material needs all go straight out the window. It's only when you aren't getting distracted by a task that you begin to delve within the realm of wants and needs. If you are starving you reach a sort of 'zone' at which you need to get food. Once food is being eaten you are at peace until you finish. Then once finished you will think about getting more food, and if not then you would think about chatting up someone you find attractive. Comfort leads to needs. Being uncomfortable means you focus on only one need/want. I suppose that being in 'the zone' and completely absorbed in an action is something that (if done all the time) then no matter whether you are rich and live with comfort/ partners/ food etc etc or you are poor with nothing that no needs are needed.

What I am trying to say is needs appear in the mind to fill in the time as a distraction to bring you to a state of not needing (the hopeful outcome) so you have peace. Also many men and women in 1st world countries who have a lot of money often spend lots of money eating food on dates etc Isn't food a primary need? Poor people also want food but many with a lot of money and comfort overinduldge until they are completely full.

christian2017

Contrary to popular misbelief, I would argue that the main driving forces of men and women, at least in 1st world countries are "higher mental" wants rather than pure material wants (such as the distinction between "absolute poverty", as in famine in 3rd world countries, rather than "relative" poverty, which doesn't account for actual financial planning or expenditures but is rather solely based on fixed income comparisons, as per economists such as Jolan Chang).

As an example, assuming a person could physically "survive" in a homeless shelter and have all of their basic material wants needed, or even have children despite having no income, a person could potentially meet all of their most basic "material" needs this way, much as how a person spending life in prison could have all of those basic needs met as well.

However, in 1st world countries, most of our wants and drives, even those we take for granted, are higher mental wants, whether money, possessions, education(s), careers, pasttimes, and things of those and that nature.

Even modern marriages are arguably a manifestation of 'higher mental wants' as well, in the sense of monogamous marriages and people having fewer children today, are a manifestation of a desire for 'quality' in a marriage, a partner, a family and so on.

As opposed to 'quantity', such as polygamy in 3rd world countries with high infant morality rate, which is more pragmatically effective if the goal is simply to "have children" or "have as many children as possible".

This, of course, is one reason that reduction of life purpose solely to 'marriage' and 'raising children', or deeming a culture on the whole as either 'life' or 'death' affirming on the basis of aggregate number of children is a flawed metric in many ways, and even this would be taking much of contemporary society, even including religious institutions for gratned; given that monogamy itself is a prioritization of higher mental wants and/or ideals above the purely physical ones.

And the radical and/or logical extreme of this argument would be making a case for polygamy and 3rd world marriage and/or parenting practices. — IvoryBlackBishop

I largely agree with what you are saying here. Monogamy does appear in cultures that have polygamy. Very often men who have financial options are atleast slightly more likely to pursue more sexual relationships. I actually believe many people resort to the desire for material things because in our modern society material things are cheaper than a spouse and children. There are ways to make these more expensive things attainable through creative methods but i don't feel at this point in the conversation i'll share those. #shark_fighter_nation.

IvoryBlackBishop

↪Gnomon

For the most part, I would definitely agree - as pretty 'commonsensical' examples, a person living in a homeless shelter, or spending life in prison has all of their 'basic material needs' provided for them without having to do much of anything.

But for most people, this would not be a desirable goal or aim in life. Most people would desire better quality housing, food, transportation, etc even if they had to sacrifice or make more personal or mental effort to acquire it, than simply the 'bare-minimum' required to live on, though I do not believe that everyone's goals are necessarily reducible to "things" per say, such as in the case of a scientist or an artist, whose goals are less "tangible" and more mental.

The myth of material wants and needs

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions