On Doing Something to Only Fill Your Own Need

Here's an epiphany. Get ready. Hold onto your seats. I'm about to bust this thing wide open. Doing something (even with no other reason than) to fill your own need is not bad. I am sick of selfless "humble" people giving and giving and giving and apparently doing nothing to satisfy themselves because they protest when anyone accuses them of filling their needs, only their need even.

You know, I would be very upset to learn that my doctor had no need to be a doctor, that he was simply doing it because there was a need for other people for a doctor. Let me tell you something, Mr. PhD, if you don't need to help me get over whatever physical ailment I'm in then you shouldn't be a doctor. If there isn't a hole in your soul when you are not being a doctor then don't be my doctor.

I think we've "negatized" the word "need." We've stuck it in these ignorant offshoots like "needy" and "selfless act." You can't have a selfless act. If you have a selfless act then who's doing it? Can you separate that part of you that people identify as self and love someone? Simply loving someone is a need fulfilled to yourself. Me loving someone else gives me such great joy that I'd be clueless if I didn't think I needed to love.

So don't give me this crap about the only reason doing something is to fulfill a need being a horrid sin. I deny that. I push it away from my reality. That statement no longer exists, and if it does it makes no sense. People need to do things that they love to do. And if, for some reason, they aren't needing to do those things, then why the heck are they doing them? Stop doing that. Be selfish and do something you like doing, k?

And furthermore (yes, more further) actively doing something where you are the only thought in your mind of recieving the needed good of that event is fine. Now, I'm not saying that if this act were rape that you should go out and rape someone with no thoughts of what those consequences would be on other people. But if, say, you were acting in a play and thought nothing of anyone else except the needed good you would get from acting (not money nor fame as those are wants--we're talking the triangle heirarchy of needs here) then more power to you! Inadvertantly I assure you that others are profiting from your infatuated, obsessive love of the need to act.

So don't do that. Don't confuse those terms, need and want. Need is so much more than want. Want is usually an unhealthy craving for something that really has no bearing on your life. It's superficial. Need is something that helps you survive. Look in a dictionary. Think about what you're saying. Words aren't just there for decoration, they have a purpose. Don't be mean. Words paint pictures in people's minds. They can also act as paint thinner and destroy those pictures. That's not fair. Then again, the only thing truly fair is a day in the sun with rides, cotton candy, attractions, and unwinable overpriced games.

Internal Dialogue:

Now wait. If you're doing something and the only reason is fulfill a need...

Then that's fine! There's absolutely nothing wrong will fulfilling your own needs.

But for no other reason than to do that? What about other people?

What about them? You're not thwarting them from finding what they need.

But what if your journey to your need thwarts them.

If they need it they'll find it.

But you've thwarted them!

Name me one need that thwarts someone out of something they need.

Okay...the need for food. If you need food and someone else needs food and you get to food first--

Then they'll die. And they won't need food anymore.

That's a little harsh, don't you think?

No. You needed food. Let's even say you needed that amount of food or you wouldn't have lived. They also needed that amount of food or they would have died. If you had shared that food you both would have died. Would that've been any better than you or the other person taking the food and one of them living and one dying? And, expounding on that, is dying really a loss? Isn't it a gain for the other person if they die? They no longer have the need of what you gained. In a way, you both win.

That's a really ridiculous, unrealistic metaphor.

Not entirely. If you take someone that someone needs away the part of that person, be it physical or mental, will have to die. And when that death does occur, the need no longer exists and the point becomes moot. Want is much more complex than that. Wants don't die. Even when that object is no longer existing nor will ever be existing the want for it will still exist. Want morphs into the word "addiction," at that point. Addiction is an incredibly dangerous thing. It scews the realization of need and want. It makes you believe that you need what you want. It makes you think you'll die if you don't have it. That's a powerful motivation.

That's true. So are you saying that people with fetishes have needs or wants? For instance, if you're into shoes (genuinly fetishing not just I really like them alot) and you're suddenly drawn into a place where shoes no longer exist, will you die?

No. Fetishes are sexual needs. Your sexual satisfaction will die. Thus you'll have no need for shoes because you'll have no desire for sex. Granted, that's a horrid way to live, don't you think?

I'm a big proponent of sex.

You're a virgin.

I'm a supporter! Just call me a sex-hag.

Wow--we are really weird. Well, do you get what I'm saying now, though? The difference between need and want and the fact that there's nothing wrong with needing something?

I think. I still have my doubts, but I've always trusted you.

We do live in the same apartment.

Yes, and there must be some civility.

currently: disassociated

current picture: