“The art of our necessities is strange, that can make vile things precious.” -William Shakespeare
The concept of need gets beat up pretty badly. It’s stretched and contorted, or crushed down into a tiny box. It’s used as a shield, or as a fulcrum for greater leverage. It’s overfed through gluttonous indulgence, or starved to wisps by neglect.
So let’s establish a healthy working definition of what needs actually are. Needs are a relative concept that imply the question, “Needed for what?” Reductionists would have the word “need” reserved strictly for physical necessities like air, water, food, and (if they’re feeling generous) shelter. This definition is a dead-end. Contrary to extreme Darwinian notions of human existence, the quest for survival of self and species does not wholly define intelligent sentient beings.
Everyone alive on the planet is currently surviving, though some are in deplorable physical, mental and emotional conditions. this indicates the absence of some critical element – some need that is not being fulfilled. As an extreme example, an unconscious person relegated to a hospital bed, hooked up to life-supporting machinery, could not be said to have everything they need for successful human existence.
Limiting the “for what?” to survival is overly strict for practical purposes. That being said, the longing of desire – especially in the specific – is not always an accurate representation of need. We’ve all likely felt the overwhelming, all-consuming desire for something or someone. We can get fixated on a specific material object or circumstance; a car, house, piece of jewelry, business opportunity or - most crippling of all - a particular person.
All our thought is bent upon acquiring the object of our desire, and it feels like we simply cannot go on without it. Though a need may indeed be present, it’s never for the specific object we’re focused upon. This can be an elusive realization, as it seems nothing will satisfy except the one particular focus of our fixation. It has to be that house, that job, or that person. The real need, however, is far broader in context – security, independence, love, etc.
Extending the notion of need to these foundational emotional experiences is appropriate, as the “for what?” can reasonably be said to include the one thing our every action is motivated by – the desire for an improved emotional state. This motivation defines human existence on the whole; it is fundamental to who we are. It’s a reflection of our true essence. We are expansive beings who thrive in an environment of love, freedom, and authentic expression. We wither without these things, so just like food and water, they are essential to successful life as a human being.
The fundamental rights of man are fairly simple. They are rooted in our inherent autonomy. We do not come into the world with a natural master pulling our strings. We have the free will to choose which thoughts to give attention to, and thus which actions to take (as inspired by those thoughts). Conditions will suggest thoughts, as will other people, but the decision as to which thoughts to ignore, investigate, or accept is ultimately made solely by the individual.
To acknowledge this innate freedom via our actions is to act in accordance with human rights. This means we must respect consent, and allow others to make the choices which are inherently theirs to make. This includes decisions about their body, their property, and whom to associate with. Having these rights acknowledged can be classified as a proper need, as in the absence of this acknowledgement, a person’s ability to naturally thrive and survive is jeopardized, inhibited, or rendered impossible.
In a social context, however, this fundamental need can get lost in the shuffle when false needs are presented and deemed indispensable. National defense, for example, is thought so important that it qualifies as a social “need”, and is thus cited to justify ignoring fundamental human rights. Here we see how misunderstanding can ensue when methods created in service of a valid need are allowed to supplant the core need itself.
Having our rights acknowledged – and thus defended – is a valid need, but any prescribed method for defense which violates the very rights it claims to protect is clearly invalid and ill-advised. Defense need not come in the form of a standing army funded by tax dollars – this method itself is not a valid need, as it is possible to survive and thrive without it.
Institutions like the military, which insist upon strict obedience from its members are a violation of human rights. If a soldier is not permitted the freedom to choose his/her own actions without violent punishment, their rights are not being acknowledged. If a citizen is not free to choose whether or not to pay for this military with the financial property gained by his/her own labor, their rights are not being acknowledged. These very real needs are being ignored in the name of protecting them.
Both personal and social “needs” are often named in error. They may be inspired by a desire to service true needs, but they are not true needs themselves. Any method intended to serve human needs must do so without violating those needs (or any others) to be a valid solution. It is impossible for needs to be in conflict with rights, because rights are needs. Any apparent conflict between needs and rights is a red flag that the cited “need” is, in fact, no need at all.
For humanity to thrive, we must have a clear understanding of the core principles at play regarding needs, and make a commitment to stay true to them. Principles can be applied to circumstances, but circumstances do not alter principles. Society is a mass co-creation, and each individual’s contribution is critically important. Rooting our thinking in valid principles provides a firm foundation for lucid discernment – it is the very definition of wisdom.
There are many possible solutions to any given problem of need, and our long-term success – both personally, and as a species - will be dependent upon our ability to discern which solutions honor our inherent nature.
”Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” - Francis Bacon
Thanks for checking in!
Brian Blackwell
Relevant articles supporting a full understanding of the ideas presented above may be found here:
