Page 5 of 6
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:47 pm
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote:TPRJones wrote:Yes, we are, but I'm trying to establish a definition of "need" beyond just an arbitrary list of food, shelter, and clothing. Since an actual concrete definition hasn't been forthcoming, trying to feel one out by selected examples seemed the way to go.
Would you agree that someone working as a racecar driver "need" some sort of automotive?
Shelter and clothing are not a need.
I've asked a few times for someone to name a place where the environment wouldn't eventually kill you unless you were sheltered, but I haven't gotten one yet.
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:48 pm
by GORDON
TPRJones wrote:Yes, we are, but I'm trying to establish a definition of "need" beyond just an arbitrary list of food, shelter, and clothing. Since an actual concrete definition hasn't been forthcoming, trying to feel one out by selected examples seemed the way to go.
The concrete definition was back in the first (or so) page when I linked wikipedia. It even went a little beyond "food and shelter" but I let it slide.
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:50 pm
by GORDON
TPRJones wrote:Stranger, would you at least acknowledge that someone with the job of computer programmer "needs" a computer in order to do their job? Or is that also a luxury?
But you don't need that job to survive, you just want it for the extra bennies. You could survive by digging ditches for money which wouldn't require the smart phone.
The "smart phone" being the original point of this entire thread, btw. Everything else has just been youse guys busting my balls.
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:51 pm
by Malcolm
TheCatt wrote:No, the concrete definition is what you need to survive: food, water, air, sleep, and warmth. You need nothing else.
There were people who possessed all these things and still died. You might have a template for a base starting list for humanity there, but to say your short list is it ... no way.
Edited By Malcolm on 1442267574
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:58 pm
by TheCatt
Malcolm wrote:TheCatt wrote:No, the concrete definition is what you need to survive: food, water, air, sleep, and warmth. You need nothing else.
There were people who possessed all these things and still died. You might have a template for a base starting list for humanity there, but to say your short list is it ... no way.
There are people who possess everything in the world and still die.
Stupid argument.
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:14 pm
by Malcolm
TheCatt wrote:Malcolm wrote:TheCatt wrote:No, the concrete definition is what you need to survive: food, water, air, sleep, and warmth. You need nothing else.
There were people who possessed all these things and still died. You might have a template for a base starting list for humanity there, but to say your short list is it ... no way.
There are people who possess everything in the world and still die.
Stupid argument.
No, their survival was fucked because some type of need wasn't met. If you're a physical invalid, you need food and water. You also need someone or something to get it for you because your ass can't. You don't need food and water, you need enough ATP, vitamins, and minerals to keep you going. I bet there's a theoretical chemical solution to the problem which doesn't require ingestion, and maybe even digestion.
Edited By Malcolm on 1442268999
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:16 pm
by GORDON
Ha, you said ATP.
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:17 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:Ha, you said ATP.
Yup. Ammo and toilet paper.
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:25 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:GORDON wrote:Ha, you said ATP.
Yup. Ammo and toilet paper.
That was your usage?
I thought you meant the stuff your cells eat. More smarty-pants way of saying "food."
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:28 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:Malcolm wrote:GORDON wrote:Ha, you said ATP.
Yup. Ammo and toilet paper.
That was your usage?
I thought you meant the stuff your cells eat. More smarty-pants way of saying "food."
Yeah I meant ... wtf is it? Adenosine triphosphate? The second part was strictly for comedic purpose.
Edited By Malcolm on 1442269752
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:09 pm
by GORDON
Yeah, without looking it up, that's close if not correct. Been too long.
The answer to "what do your cells eat?" begins and ends with ATP.
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:53 pm
by TPRJones
GORDON wrote:TPRJones wrote:Stranger, would you at least acknowledge that someone with the job of computer programmer "needs" a computer in order to do their job? Or is that also a luxury?
But you don't need that job to survive, you just want it for the extra bennies. You could survive by digging ditches for money which wouldn't require the smart phone.
The "smart phone" being the original point of this entire thread, btw.
I 'm working my way up to that. Geez. No one has any patience.
So I'm gathering that you would say that a computer programmer does not "need" a computer and that a rececar driver does not "need" some sort of automobile? It seems that is what you are saying but I don't want to put word in your mouth.
Everything else has just been youse guys busting my balls.
Some, yes, but not entirely. I still think what you have offered as a definition of needs does not entirely match up with what you have offered as examples of needs.
I've asked a few times for someone to name a place where the environment wouldn't eventually kill you unless you were sheltered, but I haven't gotten one yet.
That word eventually is problematic. Eventually your house can kill you by burning down around your ears. But in general I would say the Afar Triangle and the Ariège region of France are strong candidates because people lived generations in both places before learning to build shelters. Hell there were some cowboys that spent decades living outside in the American West working roaming herds of cattle. Is it comfortable? No. Is it survivable? Yes.
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:02 pm
by GORDON
TPRJones wrote:So I'm gathering that you would say that a computer programmer does not "need" a computer and that a rececar driver does not "need" some sort of automobile? It seems that is what you are saying but I don't want to put word in your mouth.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying because no one "needs" to do either of those professions.
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:31 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:TPRJones wrote:So I'm gathering that you would say that a computer programmer does not "need" a computer and that a rececar driver does not "need" some sort of automobile? It seems that is what you are saying but I don't want to put word in your mouth.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying because no one "needs" to do either of those professions.
I guess want v. need is bullshit because no one needs philosophy or metaphysics which means we don't need ethics and we don't need law or order.
Edited By Malcolm on 1442277676
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:38 pm
by TheCatt
At this point, I think Gordon's just trolling by pretending to not know what need means.
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:04 pm
by TPRJones
GORDON wrote:Yeah, that's what I'm saying because no one "needs" to do either of those professions.
Fair enough.
Would you define any particular food item as a need? Is a good steak a need? Is a bowl of rice a need? Is broccoli a need?
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:09 pm
by Alhazad
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:12 pm
by GORDON
TPRJones wrote:GORDON wrote:Yeah, that's what I'm saying because no one "needs" to do either of those professions.
Fair enough.
Would you define any particular food item as a need? Is a good steak a need? Is a bowl of rice a need? Is broccoli a need?
Depends on context. "Food" is a need, but specific things... it depends. If a steak is all there is to eat, yeah, you need it.
I don't think I am being ambiguous or contrary at all, defining my definition of "need." Personally, I am kind of baffled a couple of you are so confused about it.
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:15 pm
by TheCatt
I'm not confused at all, you're just wrong about what need means.
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:28 pm
by TPRJones
GORDON wrote:Depends on context.
I'm going to give that bit a pass because it's slightly confusing in the sense that you've been pretty clear that needs are not relative but rather absolutes, and this runs counter to that. That's more like what Catt and I have been saying. But I digress...
"Food" is a need, but specific things... it depends. If a steak is all there is to eat, yeah, you need it.
Great. So in general no particular food item is a need, it's more that the general concept of food as fuel for the body is a need. I presume the same would be true of shelter and clothing in that no particular shelter or clothing is a need but rather the need is the concept of protection from the elements.
Are there no other conceptual needs? What about mobility; is the ability to move and acquire those needful resources a need? How about information; is sight and hearing a need in so much as they assist in finding those resources?
I promise I'm not being tricky, just fleshing out the boundaries of need versus luxury.
Edited By TPRJones on 1442280520
