Okay, I agree that for "All your needs are legitimate...." the "all" part doesn't really seem to hold. Your example straightforwardly seems to address that. Stuff that's closer to "biological stuff we decent understanding of" (drugs, food) doesn't really fit the claim I was making.

I think you also helped me figure out a better way to express my sentiment. I was about to rephrase it as "All of your emotional needs are legit" but that feels like it's a me going down the wrong path. I'll try to explain why I wanted to phrase it that way in the first place.

I see the "standard view" as something like "Of course your emotions are important, but there are few unsavory feelings that just aren't acceptable and you shouldn't have them." I think I reached to quickly for "There is no such thing as unacceptable feelings" rather than "Here is why this specific feeling you are calling unacceptable actually is acceptable." I probably reached for that because it was easier.

Claim 1: The reasoning that proclaims a given emotional/social need is not legitimate is normally flawed.

(I could speak more to that, but it's sort of what I was mentioning at the end of my last comment)

I think this thing you mentioned is relevant.

Must those needs stay legitimate ? No, actually, having taken breaks of up to half a year from the practice I can actually tell those needs get less relevant the longer you go without smoking

I totally agree that something like smoking can have this "re-normalization" mechanism. Now I wonder what happens if we swap out the need for smoking with the need to feel like someone cares about you?

Claim 2: Ignored emotional/social needs will not "re-normalize" and will be a recurring source of pain, suffering, and problems.

The second claim seems like it could lead to very tricky debate. High-school-me would have insisted that I could totally just ignore my desire to be liked by people without ill consequences, because look at me, I'm doing it right now and everything's fine! I can currently see how this was causing me serious problems. So... if someone said to me that they can totally just ignore things that I'd call emotional/social needs with no ill affects, I don't know how I'd separate it being true from it being the same as what I was going through.

Hazard's Shortform Feed

by Hazard 1 min read4th Feb 2018219 comments

In light of reading through Raemon's shortform feed, I'm making my own. Here will be smaller ideas that are on my mind.