"You don't need anyone to be happy." True or false?

[Iwannaplato]

I'm not seeing the logical incompatibility between our postings.

If one person finds happiness without others it does not confirm the premise if the premise is aimed at everyone. It would simply mean that guy or gal didn't need it. IOW it would not demonstrate a general truth, which the title seems to be asserting.

If anyone can perform an action without something, that thing is not NEEDED to perform the action. You may need it, but that's because of some detail of your situation NOT because it is a requirement (needed) of the action.

No, the exception, could be an exception. If one person in Guam doesn't need other people to feel happy, we can't conclude that no one else needs other people to be happy. That person could have a significantly different brain, for example. Also you are putting the need into the situation - a detail of the situation - whereas it might be a need that has to do with our/most people's makeup. And I' dont consider happiness is an action. But if we consider it an action, there are people with innate abilities that other people do not have: for example tetrachromats.

[LuckyR]

If one person finds happiness without others it does not confirm the premise if the premise is aimed at everyone. It would simply mean that guy or gal didn't need it. IOW it would not demonstrate a general truth, which the title seems to be asserting.

If anyone can perform an action without something, that thing is not NEEDED to perform the action. You may need it, but that's because of some detail of your situation NOT because it is a requirement (needed) of the action.

No, the exception, could be an exception. If one person in Guam doesn't need other people to feel happy, we can't conclude that no one else needs other people to be happy. That person could have a significantly different brain, for example. Also you are putting the need into the situation - a detail of the situation - whereas it might be a need that has to do with our/most people's makeup. And I' dont consider happiness is an action. But if we consider it an action, there are people with innate abilities that other people do not have: for example tetrachromats.

Just write "usually needed" and we can call it quits. Or you can redefine "needed" to mean something less than required.

[Iwannaplato]

If anyone can perform an action without something, that thing is not NEEDED to perform the action. You may need it, but that's because of some detail of your situation NOT because it is a requirement (needed) of the action.

No, the exception, could be an exception. If one person in Guam doesn't need other people to feel happy, we can't conclude that no one else needs other people to be happy. That person could have a significantly different brain, for example. Also you are putting the need into the situation - a detail of the situation - whereas it might be a need that has to do with our/most people's makeup. And I' dont consider happiness is an action. But if we consider it an action, there are people with innate abilities that other people do not have: for example tetrachromats.

Just write "usually needed" and we can call it quits. Or you can redefine "needed" to mean something less than required.

Could be in this case that 'usually needed' works. I don't know. As far as less than required, I don't think we can make that change due to an exception. I'll throw out another example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gu%C3%B0l ... B3rsson%20
Here we have just one example of someone who did not need to be removed from the water and other very cold conditions rapidly. I don't think we should say to people that they usually need to be removed from those conditions rapidly. Nor to get into the definition of need. I think it would be good communication to say people need to be removed from those conditions rapidly. And the exceptions don't necessarily say anything at all about most people.
I'm being fussy not necessarily in reaction to you, but to a pattern I notice where someone does well without X, or manages to Y, and this is used to tell everyone they don't need X, or can manage Y. So while the first part of your suggested compromise, may well work, I want to set a hard line against the pattern of jumping from exceptions to rules/expectations for everyone.

[LuckyR]

No, the exception, could be an exception. If one person in Guam doesn't need other people to feel happy, we can't conclude that no one else needs other people to be happy. That person could have a significantly different brain, for example. Also you are putting the need into the situation - a detail of the situation - whereas it might be a need that has to do with our/most people's makeup. And I' dont consider happiness is an action. But if we consider it an action, there are people with innate abilities that other people do not have: for example tetrachromats.

Just write "usually needed" and we can call it quits. Or you can redefine "needed" to mean something less than required.

Could be in this case that 'usually needed' works. I don't know. As far as less than required, I don't think we can make that change due to an exception. I'll throw out another example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gu%C3%B0l ... B3rsson%20
Here we have just one example of someone who did not need to be removed from the water and other very cold conditions rapidly. I don't think we should say to people that they usually need to be removed from those conditions rapidly. Nor to get into the definition of need. I think it would be good communication to say people need to be removed from those conditions rapidly. And the exceptions don't necessarily say anything at all about most people.
I'm being fussy not necessarily in reaction to you, but to a pattern I notice where someone does well without X, or manages to Y, and this is used to tell everyone they don't need X, or can manage Y. So while the first part of your suggested compromise, may well work, I want to set a hard line against the pattern of jumping from exceptions to rules/expectations for everyone.

I totally get it. From my perspective it's the difference between scholastic discussion between experts in the field (hard meaning of "need", as in absolutely required) and general advice for the public (soft meaning of "need" which means statistically the preference).

[The36]

Nature make sure we feel incomplite, so we have great desire to find wright person for babies, another people to help eachother. Like you wont give a key of the car to a child, nature wont gives us a keyboard to punch our feelings. Unless you heck yourself and understand life in very deep ways - probably, i dont know but i think we all trying to do so. Point is how you wont be depressed if we are all driven from outside for things that only happen within us. And look how could not be wars if a few people cant even normaly talk to each other on some forum. We have easier job to undertand eachother then millions of palestinians and israelies or billions people in the world. Wars will happen for thousand of years, because every person just see very nerow picture and we are not even close to see that.

[Atla]

So here is the million dollar question that continues to evade me. Given that men typically can't feel fully happy/complete by themselves, while women typically can. So generally speaking, there are no true relationships between men and women, that's just one of the biggest lies in existence.

But is there exception? Do women exist who genuinely need companionship in order to be able to feel fully happy/complete? I'm not talking about security and child rearing here, just companionship aside from those. (And I'm talking about normal healthy women, not co-dependent ones or personality disordered ones etc.)

If yes then what are such women like, how to recognize them?

[accelafine]

So here is the million dollar question that continues to evade me. Given that men typically can't feel fully happy/complete by themselves, while women typically can. So generally speaking, there are no true relationships between men and women, that's just one of the biggest lies in existence.

But is there exception? Do women exist who genuinely need companionship in order to be able to feel fully happy/complete? I'm not talking about security and child rearing here, just companionship aside from those. (And I'm talking about normal healthy women, not co-dependent ones or personality disordered ones etc.)

If yes then what are such women like, how to recognize them?

I don't know where you get the idea that women are 'happy by themselves'. They are as happy as men are.

[Fairy]

So here is the million dollar question that continues to evade me. Given that men typically can't feel fully happy/complete by themselves, while women typically can. So generally speaking, there are no true relationships between men and women, that's just one of the biggest lies in existence.

But is there exception? Do women exist who genuinely need companionship in order to be able to feel fully happy/complete? (I'm talking about normal healthy women, not co-dependent ones or personality disordered ones etc.)

If yes then what are such women like, how to recognize them?

Until men and women learn how to love each other unconditionally, I’m not including an intentional will that is capable of causing someone else abuse either by the physical pain of torture,or even to murder them. I’m talking about a consensual mutual desire for genuine companionship. Ideally where each other live separately from one and the other, like for instance living in their own homes. But if they cannot do that, if that’s not an option, then by all means live together in the same house, but both choose to sleep in their own private bedroom, and have their own separate private spaces in the shared house where they can both retreat to relieve any undue pressure from having to constantly perform for each other, if they ever need to unwind or de-stress for whatever reason.

Until they learn to love each other unconditionally, and when the heavy burden of weight that is too much expectation,neediness and possessiveness, sometimes jealousy is removed and no longer present in each other’s presence then men and woman have zero chance of ever experiencing the things they are craving in wanting to be in a relationship in the first place.

If they are not willing to love each other unconditionally, then they might as well just forget relationships altogether.
It seems most people in this world are just not intelligently mature or emotionally awakened enough to invest in that kind of deal.Most are not highly evolved or ready enough for that kind of commitment.They are often too lazy to put in the effort required to make relationships heavenly, that’s why most just turn to shit, and what could have been a heaven is a hell, and no one wants to live in hell. All they have do is say to each other, we Can do this. Yes we Can. Forget the Can’t … just always want what you want, and apply it, it’s that simple. Most people end up not wanting what they wanted, so it’s really important to always want what you want.

Lastly, never pay for pain with pleasure. Balance is the key to successful relationships. Needy people will fail at relationships. Only when you are internally happy, not distracted by external obstacles and other thing’s and people’s ways that are beyond your control, only when you are fully aware of your own internalised happiness and wellbeing, and are emotionally balanced, wholesome, who can enjoy your own company, can sit in silence for hours with yourself without feeling agitated, when you are not afraid to be alone, when you are content, and most importantly, able and willing to forgive yourself and your partner for any transgressions that may occur between you both. Only then will you be invincible, and you will be an absolute delight to be around.

[accelafine]

So here is the million dollar question that continues to evade me. Given that men typically can't feel fully happy/complete by themselves, while women typically can. So generally speaking, there are no true relationships between men and women, that's just one of the biggest lies in existence.

But is there exception? Do women exist who genuinely need companionship in order to be able to feel fully happy/complete? (I'm talking about normal healthy women, not co-dependent ones or personality disordered ones etc.)

If yes then what are such women like, how to recognize them?

Until men and women learn how to love each other unconditionally, I’m not including an intentional will that is capable of causing someone else abuse either by the physical pain of torture,or even to murder them. I’m talking about a consensual mutual desire for genuine companionship. Ideally where each other live separately from one and the other, like for instance living in their own homes. But if they cannot do that, if that’s not an option, then by all means live together in the same house, but both choose to sleep in their own private bedroom, and have their own separate private spaces in the shared house where they can both retreat to relieve any undue pressure from having to constantly perform for each other, if they ever need to unwind or de-stress for whatever reason.

Until they learn to love each other unconditionally, and when the heavy burden of weight that is too much expectation,neediness and possessiveness, sometimes jealousy is removed and no longer present in each other’s presence then men and woman have zero chance of ever experiencing the things they are craving in wanting to be in a relationship in the first place.

If they are not willing to love each other unconditionally, then they might as well just forget relationships altogether.
It seems most people in this world are just not intelligently mature or emotionally awakened enough to invest in that kind of deal.Most are not highly evolved or ready enough for that kind of commitment.They are often too lazy to put in the effort required to make relationships heavenly, that’s why most just turn to shit, and what could have been a heaven is a hell, and no one wants to live in hell. All they have do is say to each other, we Can do this. Yes we Can. Forget the Can’t … just always want what you want, and apply it, it’s that simple. Most people end up not wanting what they wanted, so it’s really important to always want what you want.

Lastly, never pay for pain with pleasure. Balance is the key to successful relationships. Needy people will fail at relationships. Only when you are internally happy, not distracted by external obstacles and other thing’s and people’s ways that are beyond your control, only when you are fully aware of your own internalised happiness and wellbeing, and are emotionally balanced, wholesome, who can enjoy your own company, can sit in silence for hours with yourself without feeling agitated, when you are not afraid to be alone, when you are content, and most importantly, able and willing to forgive yourself and your partner for any transgressions that may occur between you both. Only then will you be invincible, and you will be an absolute delight to be around.

What does 'love unconditionally' even mean? Be a doormat? Be pathetic? Put up with anything? It actually means nothing. What does 'love' mean, for that matter? It's a pretty inadequate sort of a word. A four letter word for an extremely complex set of emotions and scenarios.

[Fairy]

Find out. Then you’ll know.

[accelafine]

Find out. Then you’ll know.

If you mean that self-serving lust you felt for hairyballs then I suppose that's one particular scenario.

'Love' doesn't have 'conditions' by defintion. It's just something that 'is'. The only people who harp on about 'unconditional love' are lust-struck idiots.

[Atla]

I don't know where you get the idea that women are 'happy by themselves'. They are as happy as men are.

Most women will proudly state it when asked. I see "happiness" alone as meaningless, empty.

[accelafine]

I don't know where you get the idea that women are 'happy by themselves'. They are as happy as men are.

Most women will proudly state it when asked. I see "happiness" alone as meaningless, empty.

Humans don't function well by themselves. Those people who say they do aren't really 'by themselves'. You can be with someone but not live with them 24/7.

[Atla]

So here is the million dollar question that continues to evade me. Given that men typically can't feel fully happy/complete by themselves, while women typically can. So generally speaking, there are no true relationships between men and women, that's just one of the biggest lies in existence.

But is there exception? Do women exist who genuinely need companionship in order to be able to feel fully happy/complete? (I'm talking about normal healthy women, not co-dependent ones or personality disordered ones etc.)

If yes then what are such women like, how to recognize them?

Until men and women learn how to love each other unconditionally, I’m not including an intentional will that is capable of causing someone else abuse either by the physical pain of torture,or even to murder them. I’m talking about a consensual mutual desire for genuine companionship. Ideally where each other live separately from one and the other, like for instance living in their own homes. But if they cannot do that, if that’s not an option, then by all means live together in the same house, but both choose to sleep in their own private bedroom, and have their own separate private spaces in the shared house where they can both retreat to relieve any undue pressure from having to constantly perform for each other, if they ever need to unwind or de-stress for whatever reason.

Until they learn to love each other unconditionally, and when the heavy burden of weight that is too much expectation,neediness and possessiveness, sometimes jealousy is removed and no longer present in each other’s presence then men and woman have zero chance of ever experiencing the things they are craving in wanting to be in a relationship in the first place.

If they are not willing to love each other unconditionally, then they might as well just forget relationships altogether.
It seems most people in this world are just not intelligently mature or emotionally awakened enough to invest in that kind of deal.Most are not highly evolved or ready enough for that kind of commitment.They are often too lazy to put in the effort required to make relationships heavenly, that’s why most just turn to shit, and what could have been a heaven is a hell, and no one wants to live in hell. All they have do is say to each other, we Can do this. Yes we Can. Forget the Can’t … just always want what you want, and apply it, it’s that simple. Most people end up not wanting what they wanted, so it’s really important to always want what you want.

Lastly, never pay for pain with pleasure. Balance is the key to successful relationships. Needy people will fail at relationships. Only when you are internally happy, not distracted by external obstacles and other thing’s and people’s ways that are beyond your control, only when you are fully aware of your own internalised happiness and wellbeing, and are emotionally balanced, wholesome, who can enjoy your own company, can sit in silence for hours with yourself without feeling agitated, when you are not afraid to be alone, when you are content, and most importantly, able and willing to forgive yourself and your partner for any transgressions that may occur between you both. Only then will you be invincible, and you will be an absolute delight to be around.

I've heard this before. People should do the opposite of this Leo two islands thing.

[Fairy]

Find out. Then you’ll know.

If you mean that self-serving lust you felt for hairyballs then I suppose that's one particular scenario.

'Love' doesn't have 'conditions' by defintion. It's just something that 'is'. The only people who harp on about 'unconditional love' are lust-struck idiots.

Yes, the lust was one part of it, for sure. There’s infinitely more parts of the whole of course.

The whole is unconditional, the parts are conditioned. I want the whole of someone, not just the half of them.

I’m not a half hearted type. I’m interested only in wholesomeness, or nothing at all.