What Constitutes Human Need or 'Desire'? How Does this Work as a Foundation for Ethical Values?
I struggle with this area and see it as a complex area of philosophy. On one hand, there is Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which begins from the physiological, progressing to the social needs and with the need for self-actualization at the upper spectrum. Often, this is interpreted to mean that the basic survival needs are foremost before the higher needs. Self actualization, creativity and spiritual needs are seen as that which may be accomplished after basic needs are fulfilled. However, I am not sure that Maslow saw it as straightforward as he emphasised the importance of self-actualization and creativity.
I am also writing this thread with an interest in the Buddhist emphasis on the way in which 'desires' are seen as something to be overcome. The area of desires, wants, attachments and higher aspirations represents a challenge for human beings. To what extent are desires an essential aspect of the human condition, based on physiological and psychological aspects of human nature? To what extent can 'desires' be overcome and how important is this in human life and the ongoing evolution of human consciousness?
I am also writing this thread with an interest in the Buddhist emphasis on the way in which 'desires' are seen as something to be overcome. The area of desires, wants, attachments and higher aspirations represents a challenge for human beings. To what extent are desires an essential aspect of the human condition, based on physiological and psychological aspects of human nature? To what extent can 'desires' be overcome and how important is this in human life and the ongoing evolution of human consciousness?
Comments (18)
However, it is in the human kingdom that self-actualization is most apparent and, so it can be asked does this figures in the larger scope of human evolution? Also, it is within the human realm that the idea of going beyond 'desire' becomes a possibility. How significant is this in the evolution of consciousness? What does the idea of 'desire' represent in the pathways of evolutionary potential?
Here are some thoughts from the Tao Te Ching - Stefan Stenudds translation.
My take on this - Desire for accomplishment, acclaim, status, wealth distracts us, makes it harder to be aware of, our Te, our intrinsic virtuosities, the voice inside us.
Chuang Tzu wrote - What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more.
"Desires" seem, at least, biologically indispensible.
If by "overcome" you mean controlled, then, to the degree "desires" are not pathological, then I suspect they can be detached from their objects (or sublimated) by ascetic techniques or behavioral conditioning or some types of neurosurgery.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Essentially, that's disembodiment, which I don't think is "a possibility". "Desire" is to body forth (i.e. being a body). Also", I don't think, or see how, "consciousness" can "evolve". Clarify what you mean ...
I suppose that depends on the culture within which "the idea of desire" is "represented".
Yes, the biological aspects of 'desire' is important and Maslow's hierarchy of needs begins with the physical. It involves the spectrum of animal and human sentient existence. One aspect which this, which Maslow may not go into enough detail about is sexual desire. This involves both the physiological and the psychological components of love and attachment.
In the Western philosophy tradition, this has been an area of great challenge, ranging from Kantian puritanism, to Gnostic celebration of the body, and the postmodern deconstruction of all such ideas.
This is where the cultural aspects come into play, as seen from the larger sphere of pluralistic understanding. The singular philosophies of desire, especially within spiritual perspectives, relate back to cultural values.Here, there is so much disagreement, especially at the core of underlying ethical values.
I should probably read the 'Tao de Ching' asi I have seen it referred to a lot on this forum in the past. It probably represents a far 'softer' form of thinking than in Western philosophy.
I am also interested in Tantric Tantric understanding of sexuality and the nature of human awareness. One concept at the core of this, is 'kundalini', such as that spoken about by Gopi Krishna. Of course, it may be regarded, or disregarded, as esoteric. But, the understanding of the nature of desire may hinge on how one sees the physical and the nature of sensory reality.
The way I think about it is that eastern philosophy looks inward and western philosophy looks outward.
I can see that the dichotomy between inwards and outwards exist to some extent. However, the panorama of this may be a little more complex, especially in the ideas of Western philosophy and otherwise. I see both looking inwards and outwards as integral aspects, and wonder how it can be put together systematically. Of course, this would involve strengths and weaknesses in thinking in perspectives.
Sure, I was generalizing to get my point across. But I still think that generalization tells something significant about the differences between the two styles of philosophy.
I have big issues in thinking about the nature of inner and outer reality..The inner perspective is a way of focusing on the outer, but it is not absolute, because it may hold limitations of others's perspectives. It may end up with a form of philosophy shoegazing. Being able to look within and outwards simultaneously, in thinking of needs, self and others may be an intricate process in thinking about the experience of needs.
This will probably just confuse things, but I have come to think that all philosophy is inward looking, introspection. Everything we do here is looking at ourselves, self awareness. When we think we are looking out into the world, we are really only looking at ourselves, looking out at the world.
This probably is not the right place to take this any further. I dont want to distract from your thread.
I think that you are right to raise this question and it is essential to the thread. That is because self awareness and introspection is at the core of all understanding of personal need. We construct needs introspectively and this is bound up with a personal sense of egoism. It is about looking inwards (and outwards) but, essentially, each person can only evaluate from the phenomenological basis of personal experience. This is about the subjective experience of one's own inner life as a basis for understanding oneself, what matters and the basis of values.
I wonder to what extent 'desire' is about bodily aspects of physiology. There is also the realm of attachments, which may be physical but also based on human aspects of relating. This is not disembodied and, if anything, it is ideas which are disembodied. However, such disembodied ideas are realised by embodied human beings.
The idea of 'desire' as an aspect of evolutionary becoming is interesting because it does show the way in which the physical aspects of existence are part of the pathways of development. Desires may play a significant role in the evolution of consciousness. Desire may be seen as detrimental to life, or it may be seen as the path to expansive awareness. Spinoza argued that if the 'fall' had not occurred there would be no history. Desire, as a bodily aspect of embodiment, may be the essential stepping stone in evolutionary pathways.
Theres a great deal of skepticism, even hostility, here on the forum to the idea that introspection, self-awareness, and intuition are fundamental to philosophy.
Yes, there is a lot of scepticism towards scepticism about introspective starting points for philosophy. However; the philosophy of relativism, especially based on quantum physics, calls into question the idea of so-called 'objective' measures. I am not sure to what extent this would call into question the basics of human needs, especially the physiological aspects.
For a while, I have questioned the dichotomy between the 'inner' and 'outer' aspects of human need. It may come back to the question of the 'meat and potatoes' of human existence, and values, or the validity of the inner dimensions of experience, as a basis for philosophical awareness.
How does that fit with your view that desires play no role in causing behaviour? I think you explained it before but I can't remember.