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.
Claim 1: The reasoning that proclaims a given emotional/social need is not legitimate is normally flawed.
Claim 2: Ignored emotional/social needs will not “re-normalize” and will be a recurring source of pain, suffering, and problems.
I can pretty much agree with these claims.
I think it’s worth breaking down emotional/social needs into lower-level entities than people usually do, e.g:
“I need to be in a sexual relationship with {X} even though they hate me”—is an emotional need that’s probably flawed
“I need to be in a sexual relationship”—is an emotional need that’s probably correct
***
“I need to be friends with {Y} even though they told me they don’t enjoy my company”—again, probably flawed
“I need to be friends with some of the people that I like”—most likely correct
But then you reach the problem of where exactly you should stop the breakdown, as in, if your need is “too” generic once you reach its core it might make it rather hard to act upon. If you don’t break them down at all you end up acting like a sitcom character without the laugh-track, wit and happy coincidences.
Also, whilst I disagree with your initial formulation:
All your needs are legitimate
I don’t particularly see anything against:
There is no such thing as unacceptable feelings
But it seems from your reply that you hold them to be one and the same ?
In both of those examples you give I agree with you judgment of the needs.
If you switch “All your needs are legit” to “All your social/emotional needs are legit”, then yeah, I was thinking of that and “There is no such things as unacceptable feelings” as the same thing. Though I can now see two distinct ideas that they could point to.
“All your S/E needs are legit” seems to say not only that it’s okay to have the need, it’s okay to do something to meet it. That’s a bit harder to handle than just “It’s okay to feel something.” And yeah, there probably is some scenario where you could have a need that there’s no way you could ethically meet, and that you can’t breakdown into a need that can be met.
Another thing that I noticed informed my initial phrasing is I think that there is a strong sour grapes pressure to go from “I have this need, and I don’t see anyway to get it met that I’m okay with” to “Well then this is a silly need and I don’t even really care about it.”
You’ve sparked many more thoughts from me on this, and I think those will come in a post sometime later. Thanks for prodding!
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.
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.
I can pretty much agree with these claims.
I think it’s worth breaking down emotional/social needs into lower-level entities than people usually do, e.g:
“I need to be in a sexual relationship with {X} even though they hate me”—is an emotional need that’s probably flawed
“I need to be in a sexual relationship”—is an emotional need that’s probably correct
***
“I need to be friends with {Y} even though they told me they don’t enjoy my company”—again, probably flawed
“I need to be friends with some of the people that I like”—most likely correct
But then you reach the problem of where exactly you should stop the breakdown, as in, if your need is “too” generic once you reach its core it might make it rather hard to act upon. If you don’t break them down at all you end up acting like a sitcom character without the laugh-track, wit and happy coincidences.
Also, whilst I disagree with your initial formulation:
I don’t particularly see anything against:
But it seems from your reply that you hold them to be one and the same ?
In both of those examples you give I agree with you judgment of the needs.
If you switch “All your needs are legit” to “All your social/emotional needs are legit”, then yeah, I was thinking of that and “There is no such things as unacceptable feelings” as the same thing. Though I can now see two distinct ideas that they could point to.
“All your S/E needs are legit” seems to say not only that it’s okay to have the need, it’s okay to do something to meet it. That’s a bit harder to handle than just “It’s okay to feel something.” And yeah, there probably is some scenario where you could have a need that there’s no way you could ethically meet, and that you can’t breakdown into a need that can be met.
Another thing that I noticed informed my initial phrasing is I think that there is a strong sour grapes pressure to go from “I have this need, and I don’t see anyway to get it met that I’m okay with” to “Well then this is a silly need and I don’t even really care about it.”
You’ve sparked many more thoughts from me on this, and I think those will come in a post sometime later. Thanks for prodding!