jgnat,
Then let’s work on your definition a bit. Is a need anything a human must have or die? Is that a long death or a slow death? How short must the death be to be considered a need? If we are talking 72 hours here, humans only need water and air. Everything else is debatable.
That's a very good point; my definition of "need" could be even more specific. I would define "need" as anything a being must have over the course of a lifetime to stay alive. Water, air, food, etc thus would all be human needs, not wants.
:I would only use qualifiers in considering love a human need: Ifyou want to function optimally or "normally" then it seems quite likely that you will need to experience love.
Though it seems unlikely that you will admit it, a definition of need that encompasses the ideal, then love does become necessary.
Yes, but that is far from making a blanket statement that all humans need love to function at all. I also don't like the term "ideal" because it's too vague; ideal at what? Nevertheless, I understand your position and generally agree with it.
Perhaps for a young man like yourself, you are particularly interested in receiving romantic love of some sort, or perhaps acknowledgement from family. As us oldies have discovered before you, those sources are not guaranteed.
As I said in my post.
There are other avenues for love that ultimately may be more satisfying. Giving love is also highly rewarding, whether it is in friendship, as a parent, or a senior doting over a canary.
Right. No argument from me.
:But" you may retort, "don't babies die from a lack of love?" Yes -- some do, but not all. Some babies are less hardy than others and seem to need quite a bit of compassionate fondling and "love." But only some. We certainly cannot expect babies and small children to think philosophically and logically about life.:Again, the baby argument came up after I pretty well illustrated that it's a poor one. Adults are not babies! Babies have a lot more needs than adults, or even toddlers.
Let’s not forget, Logansrun, that you brought up babies to begin with. Babies are not blobs of amorphous Jello. A very sophisticated development is happening in the early years. A baby without social interaction may never say goo goo gaa gaa, let alone grow up to have an intelligible thought. It is true that babies can not rationalize away a deficiency in their environment as adults can. Like the need for love. But I would argue that this rationalization does no good for the adult.
Yeah, I brought up the baby argument, showed how extrapolating to adult needs from baby needs was not good and what do people do? Start talking about babies again!
I also brought up the examples of homeless people and seniors benefiting from social interaction / acts of love. Care to address those as well?
You seem to be misunderstanding me. Nowhere did I say that humans don't benefit form social interaction and love. I simply stated they are not completely necessary for survival or even minimal enjoyment.
:I especially will dogmatically assert that you don't need any particularperson or groups approval or love -- even family. Well, that is a far cry from your thread heading. And this is another kettle of fish altogether. Now, many species of fish abandon their young soon after birth. But even fingerlings find security in numbers. Schooling assists with survival. In the whole, the fishies in the centre have a higher chance of survival. Other herding animals show similar insecurity when alone. Here’s a commentary on Monty Robert’s book, the Horse Whisperer:“Horses, either in the wild or tame, are very social creatures with extremely strong herd instincts. Their only means for survival is to stay close together so that every horse can be warned of the slightest impending danger. If they must fight back a predator, their strength is found in numbers. ...The worst form of punishment that the mare can use on an unruly horse, is to send it out away from the herd. All horses instinctively know that, if they are separated from the herd, their lives are in grave danger. This form of punishment is very effective and horses will quickly accept who the leader is.” http://www.waldau.com/monty_roberts.html
I think I can argue effectively that human beings, similarly, are social creatures. Though it is true that love may not be attainable from those we expect it from (family, formal social structures), and that we can replace those sources of affection given initiative and time, the very act of rejection is devastating nevertheless.
I agree that humans are social creatures and finding and giving "love" is deeply hardwired in us. But I don't consider it an absolute necessity since we have other highly evolved capacities, in particular the capacity to think about our thinking and philosophize. This is due to our highly evolved cererbral cortex. Although comparision with fish and horses is helpful, you still cannot extrapolate from them to humans.
Also, I'd like to point out that there really is no such thing as a devastating act, apart from actual physical violence. The act of rejection is actually neutral; only our belief system about the rejection can make it "devastating." We are constructivist thinkers as Kelly, Ellis, Beck, Bandura, Seligman and many others have pointed out. No one has to view rejection as devastating, although I would recommend they can view it negatively since that will likely prompt them to take action to get other people, or perhaps the rejecting party, to approve of them (thought this is far from necessary).
As for Frankl, well, he said a lot of poetic things. I wouldn't take his statement about love being "salvation" as literal.
B.