ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Politics & Political Science

Universal Happiness - 5 Things That We All Want

Updated on September 11, 2015
Source

Context

In regards to people, it can be argued that happiness is a subjective term. Happiness for one person can be brought about by completely different things than for another. Some people might find that being powerful will make them happy and will strive for that. Some people might find that making a difference in the world, or being remembered will make them happy.

This hub is very simple. My argument is that although there are many different ways that people think they can go to bring them happiness, there are certain universal factors that must be met in order to achieve any kind of happiness. The requirements of happiness. Things that every(healthy)body must have before they can call themselves happy.

Although there are different humans, they are all still humans.

After these universal ideas of the requirements of happiness have been established and recognised, I believe law should be reformed to cater for them. These should be the very basis of our law systems across the globe.

The Grim Reaper doth not equally strike.
The Grim Reaper doth not equally strike. | Source

1. Not Fearing Your Death

People do not want to die. I dare say that we can all agree that not fearing death is one of our key desires. We will all probably end up doing it, later. We understand that chances are, one day we will die.

But for some, as well as knowing it will happen in the distant future, they have to fear death every day. Fear of murder, disease, famine and old age are the common causes for fearing death. If you know that one of these factors play an active role in your life, if you know that there is a good chance you will be murdered, the knowledge will haunt you persistently.

Thus, I would say that the state of not fearing death is something that everybody wants. Something that everyone can appreciate, and something that brings happiness to those who are in that state. The state of safety.

Sadness
Sadness | Source

2. Not Suffering

Suffering is not like fear of death. Because that is just one state of mind. Suffering can take many forms and can be a result of many different things. Suffering does not necessarily lead to death. Hunger, sleep deprivation, fatigue, disease induced pain and feeling cold are all physical examples of suffering. Experiencing something traumatic, the loss of a loved one or guilt over doing something wrong are examples of mental suffering.

Excluding masochists & sadists, who enjoy inflicting themselves or others respectively, with pain, I would hope that everyone can agree that they respect the avoidance of suffering as another universal human desire.

Source

3. Leaving a Legacy - Feeling worth

Feeling like you are worth something seems to me a part of human nature. Everybody wants to feel like they do some sort of good, naturally. It takes a lot of degrading before a person's self esteem is ruined, and even then it is not that they do not want to have worth, it is just that they believe they do not. This makes these people unhappy. We can all agree that feeling worth is an important and necessary part of human life.

Knowing that even if you die today, the fact that you have left something positive to the universe makes your life meaningful, with purpose. Having children, inventing something or helping to, creating art or aiding in the construction of a building or bridge or even looking after something like a pet are all good examples of leaving a legacy in this world.

Although quite abstract, I would say that this is an important part of being human and would reason that everyone else would agree, leaving a physical or conceptual legacy behind for future generations to enjoy or be is a necessary part of being human.

Source

4. Opportunity

The choice to do what one wishes is a necessary part of happiness. Being forced to do anything, even if it is right by all standards, takes away the pleasure of it. People need to feel like they have the opportunity to do what they wish, that they are in control of their own lives and their own happiness. This might explain why a lot of teenagers end up doing seemingly stupid actions before breaking off from their parents' authority. When it comes to the stage that we feel that we know enough to make our own decisions, we do not want somebody tellings us to do them, even if we would agree, given the choice. As children we accept rules and authority easier, this might be because we do not know any differently, we do not even know the choices that are out there, all we see is that our parents keep us alive, and are grateful for it. Which brings up the next important part of happiness.

Source

5. Knowledge

Knowledge is a very peculiar thing. We are either content with a total lack of knowledge and being "blissfully ignorant" or we are only content with knowing everything, and will continue to lust for more insatiably. Unfortunately, with blissful ignorance, as soon as we know something, we want to know more, and are taken out of this state. This happens at birth and is a good thing because blissful ignorance would not serve humanity well in surviving on this planet.

Denial of knowledge is very cruel and I hope that most people would agree that freedom of information and knowledge is something that we should all strive for. Knowing things makes us happy. Not knowing leaves us room for worry, doubt and fear.

Then we will have our utopia.
Then we will have our utopia. | Source

Overall

I think that there are at least 5 universal desires of humanity. Each desire I believe to be necessary to call oneself happy. If one of these are not present, I would argue that total happiness has not been reached.

These are:

  1. Not fearing death
  2. Not suffering
  3. Having children/leaving a legacy
  4. Opportunity
  5. Knowledge

    As I have mentioned before, I believe that our law systems should be based on these 5 principles. Our law should reinforce these ideas until law would no longer even be necessary. A Utopia will have been achieved.

Note: If anyone would like to add anything that they think is necessary to achieve happiness that is universal to everyone and does not fall under any of the above categories, please comment and I will add it in :)

LEAVE COMMENTS IN THE SECTION BELOW
LEAVE COMMENTS IN THE SECTION BELOW

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Sanxuary 2 years ago

      My list would be pretty different. Death is a part of life and we will experience it and no legacy will ever last. Most people who left a legacy did not achieve one with out creating regrets and trespasses against others. God does not admire Presidents unless they lived a Godly life and pursued his values and the rich have no lasting legacy in Heaven in most cases. My list would place sustainability at the top of the list. What would life be if we never feared starvation, thirstiness and if other mandatory needs had been met without working to death for them. Knowing our kids have this would be a great legacy. Not repeating our mistakes is knowledge and a lasting legacy. Life is about maturity and it serves no other purpose so knowledge is a good one on the list. Still knowledge is only good if you mature enough to use it correctly. Regardless of any faith or religion the context of the Bible is about good decisions triumphing over terrible ideas. A positive World where good ideas triumph over money, power and greed would be a better world. Instead of ruling in favor of a select group of people, we should be ruling in the favor of what is best for all people. Opportunity is very important and we are constantly at odds in the belief that one shoe fits everyone. Individual rights and freedom are extremely important and so is the need for a secular society that allows all groups to exist but also allows the freedom to co exist and practice what they believe. All the things you listed are things denied to us on Earth and oddly death will grant us these things unless you believe in a hell, then you our pretty much back on Earth.

    • profile image

      Sanxuary 4 years ago

      1. The right to sanctuary. Personal, Home and the right to practice it.

      2. The ability to not live in hypocrisy.

      3. The ability and entitlements to self preservation. Food, Water and shelter.

      4. Choice and the ability to have it. To have it requires us to accept its consequences and forces others to accept theirs.

      5. The concepts of equal empowerment in our lives. Everyone should have the ability to work themselves to death and achieve a better life by doing so. We are a long ways from this one.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 4 years ago from London

      Thanks Bob and I agree with you :)

      Expect to see more from you too!

    • Bob Zermop profile image

      Bob Zermop 4 years ago from California, USA

      Hi Philanthropy. First, I want to say again that I think your theory of these five universal desires is well thought out, and I can't think of any specific exceptions to your rule. Nonetheless, I stand by my view that any stereotypes on individuals are potentially damaging, though I'm very much comforted by the fact that you said, "That said I'm perfectly accepting of the fact that I might be wrong..."

      I have no issue with trying to postulate any universals or trying to gain a deeper understanding of human nature; in fact, I think those are admirable. But my issue with stereotyping arises when the stereotyper operates with a closed mind and tries to cram people into boxes rather than exploring how they naturally fit.

      Especially when the crammer has power and influence (plus god forbid they be well-intentioned, and that's only half a joke), that's when the damage occurs, and the mentality might even spread. Nothing makes me wince like seeing (or hearing or reading, of course) someone trying to "cure" another that was perfectly happy before the "help" and is doing no harm or even being a benefit those around them, and society in general.

      Maybe as a bit of an introvert with the travel bug (which sometimes results in behavior which I'm sure is a bit odd to many), I have a personal connection to those who travel a ways off the beaten path. All stereotyping makes me a little wary because of the mentality's potential to overreach and intrude on individuality, even when the stereotyping that's happening is by itself benign or even helpful in some manner.

      So after some thought I've realized I actually have no issue directly with your hub, and in fact think it's both thoughtful and well-written. My discomfort stemmed from the fact that I believed and still believe it is based off of a sort of stereotype, however mostly accurate, and I wanted to add that perspective to the comments discussion.

      I didn't exactly do it concisely, though. :D Thanks for the comment space, as well as your thoughtful responses, and best of luck with your Apprenticeship. Look forward to seeing you and your hubs around Hubpages!

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 4 years ago from London

      Bob, :)

      Thanks again for the thought provoking response.

      I should probably clear up that my aim of this hub was to get people to realise and think about how we all have the same or similar basic desires, and that after we recognise which these are we can rationally decide how law should cater for us.

      That said I'm perfectly accepting of the fact that I might be wrong and that these are not truly universal desires since they merely cover a majority.

      I guess the principle in this hub was really to say "these are universal" and the test of whether they really were universal or not was whether anyone contested - about the best you can do considering the universality of the matter!

      Another thing is to note that all of the points I made stem from the idea that we are all genetically inclined to each of them. That is to say, we are all born seeking or being incredibly inclined to seek these things.

      Living painlessly, hope, stimulus (knowledge) and children are innate desires of a human being and thus I dare state that those who do not desire these things cannot be classified as "normal" or "healthy" human beings.

      Perhaps what these people are is in fact a better or more virtuous life, but I don't think it's human.

      It's funny that you bring up the idea of stereotyping actually. It's really an interesting subject. Although in most cases stereotyping is a fallacious thing to do, in nature, because of the way our language works, stereotyping becomes perfectly acceptable.

      For example, take: "birds are born with wings". We could call that a 'stereotype' but the stereotype will ring true 100% because it's the very definition we have made for birds. If something isn't born with wings then it can't be a bird.

      Likewise, if it turns out that naturally humans innately desire to live, then anything that is born that does not desire to live is certainly no human. At least, no normal one.

      I'll read your hub (which sounds interesting) after I finish my first two Apprenticeship Hub-Tasks!

    • Bob Zermop profile image

      Bob Zermop 4 years ago from California, USA

      Hi Philanthropy. Thank you for your courteous response. First, let me excuse myself; I didn't mean to imply that you personally were stereotyping, nor that psychiatry is necessarily negative (though I do believe that's a sort of stereotyping that can be damaging like the rest).

      The reason I brought the point up was because you stated in your hub that you think it would be a good idea to implement global law based off of these (for lack of a better word and in my view) assumptions or stereotypes. While I think that using your points as a basis for law would certainly bring about positive changes, many of which would be a vast improvement from some of the poorly based laws that exist today, my concern is for the wayward individual that conceivably might not fit neatly into all of these boxes.

      In my view, happiness is such an individual thing that it can't be completely bound by any stereotypes, though some well-thought out ones (like the ones you posted) might come very close. I don't want to link bomb your comments' section, but I have another hub about what I think we should aim for in a perfect society, which is here: https://hubpages.com/politics/a-perfect-society... . Your points almost cover all people, but I think that almost isn't really good enough if we are talking about truly implementing some sort of global law.

      Of course I value the rights of the majority and think they should be protected, but I'm no utilitarian and think that the minority are generally in the most danger. This is why I'm wary of any stereotyping (including psychiatry) when it is used to impose anything on individuals. Like you said above, it's very difficult, maybe impossible, to know another person better than themselves, and unless they are interfering with another's happiness, I would tend towards having them reach out for help rather than imposing "help" on those who don't need it.

      Thanks for the comment space and the thoughtful response; please tell me if anything's ambiguous about my response.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 4 years ago from London

      @Bob Zermop,

      Thank you very much for taking the time to read and comment. I read your hub about stereotyping and I agree with you entirely, though I'll now proceed to defend myself concerning this particular hub.

      I'll start off by admitting that this entire hub is based on a fallacy! The 'no true scotsman fallacy' to be exact (worth googling). What I've said is that "if you don't want these 5 things then you're not a healthy human being" which is of course seemingly completely absurd when you ask the question "why do you get to decide what a normal human being is?"

      But on closer inspection it is not me who is deciding that someone who doesn't fear death is abnormal, it's our society's understanding of psychiatry. Someone that doesn't strive to avoid death is known as suicidal. Someone that doesn't strive to avoid pain is known as masochistic. We as a society have decided that this is abnormal behaviour, and that is the definition of normal or in my own words 'healthy' that I have taken. So you see, I have not done any stereotyping myself, it is not like racism or sexism, I am taking psychiatry's definitions of a healthy human state and deducing very simple statements. You can say that psychiatry is 'stereotyping' human beings and that wanting to die is healthy because 'healthy' is just another subjective term, but for the sake of an online article I find taking societal authoritative definitions the easiest way of communicating my point!

      That is why I find it unjust that you are accusing me of 'stereotyping' anyone.

      That said, for point 3 (which I admit I was dubious about myself), there is no popularly known clinical term for the (what I call) abnormality of not wanting to leave a legacy. I would call it severe low self esteem (but I'm sure there is a proper term), to actively want to not leave any mark on the Earth.

      Unfortunately, the nature of saying something is universal makes it impossible to ever really know 100% for sure if I'm right, perhaps there genuinely are 'healthy', 'happy' human beings who simply don't care about leaving their mark, though being so different from the rest of humanity probably would make them unhealthy and abnormal in their own right.

      The reason I can state so confidently that these 5 things are things that everyone wants is because I have yet to meet anyone who disagrees personally. You are the first one to hypothesise that there might be healthy people who do not want all 5 (and I commend that) but I have yet to meet anyone who will genuinely vow that they are those people. Even then, would I believe them? Probably not.

      It's one of those subjects that will never be certain but we can be pretty sure, human behaviour is pretty varied! That is why I'm so interested in it. I feel that these 5 are things that everyone wants, but if I'm convinced that there are people who disagree then I'll be sure to amend it!

      Thanks for your time and effort, you seem very intelligent and so I think I might just follow you! :) Have a good evening or morning.

      It's 3:00 AM here so I hope this was coherent.

      Philanthropy,

    • Bob Zermop profile image

      Bob Zermop 4 years ago from California, USA

      Hi Philanthropy. First, very interesting hub, and I want to thank you for writing something so thought-provoking. I'll respond just with my two cents.

      I think this was a good hypothesis of some fundamentals in human nature, and I partially agree with you on several - but I also disagree in parts. Your five necessary parts to happiness are 1. Not fearing death, 2. Not suffering, 3. Having children/leaving a legacy, 4. Opportunity, and 5. Knowledge.

      I certainly think all of these are important to most, and important to me, but I hesitate in calling them universal, as I do with anything. My disagreement lies not so much in any specific number part (for lack of a better phrase :D ), but in the whole idea of stereotyping happiness at all.

      Your proposed universals are difficult to argue with (they're well thought out), but the easiest one for me to use as an example would be #3, so I'll use it. 3.) Having children/leaving a legacy. I'm not one of these people (leaving a sort of legacy is important to me), but I can conceive and emphasize with a hypothetical individual who simply wants to live, enjoy life, experience it to his personal fullest, and then just pass on, taking his experiences with him (or her, this is hypothetical) to the grave.

      Of course we could debate whether they would REALLY mean it to not be a sort of legacy (stories written or told about them, etc), but I think it's perfectly possible to have an individual that truly doesn't care what the world thinks once they leave it. If you disagree with that claim, understandable. I admit, I've never met anyone I could claim 100% met that requirement of not wanting a legacy of some sort, though I've met many I would strongly suspect so.

      However, even if you disagree on that specific example, what I really wanted to point out was the difficulty, and maybe impossibility, of "stereotyping correctly". I don't know how to explain further than that, though I did write a hub a while back (http://bobzermop.hubpages.com/hub/Why-sexism-and-r... about stereotyping that may clarify my view a little more. Please feel free to respond with any questions about my admittedly muddled (it's one in the morning here) explanation.

      This is a good hub; will definitely check out some more!

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Thank you, Mr.Orion, for sparing the time to spar with me (loquaciously), best of luck in your future endeavours!

      Philanthropy,

    • Steve Orion profile image

      Steve Orion 5 years ago from Tampa, Florida

      If, by now, you haven't seen what I've trying to say, or have misunderstood what I said, then you wouldn't be able to see in another dozen posts with thousands of additional words. It's all well and good, as different people think in different ways. I sometimes find religious people who adamantly refuse, either knowingly or otherwise, to understand the point being presented by opposing arguments. I tried to play devil's advocate and bring up some counterpoints, in vain, perhaps, but if any headway could have been made in this case, it would have been made. Thanks for the discussion, nonetheless =)

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Steve, the quote I quoted speaks for itself, you cannot go back and pretend you meant something entirely different by it ^^

      As for the religious killings, they would be in co-ordinance of one of my other 5 points, for instance promised paradise would be to achieve no suffering, as would threatened by concepts like hell.

      And what I said was not at all a contradiction: You said: "You define knowledge as knowing something that has nothing to do and has no affect on the person's immediate existence" but I never said that was the case.

      Neither statements " humans may be the only ones to gain satisfaction from useless knowledge" and "No, I never put that "limitation" on it. I only said that people gain satisfaction from useless knowledge" express the idea that I have limited the concept of knowledge to useless information or non-immediate information.

      Please express exactly how you came to the conclusion that these statements express a limitation of knowledge and a "blatant contradiction".

      As for the rebuttals, you have not answered the claim that humans are naturally curious, in the sense that they will ask questions and want to know what things are - as children, and unless taught not to, as adults. (point about knowledge). You did not answer my question of whether you believe humans are naturally curious.

      Neither did you defend the idea that oppressed humans are happy - Where I said that people who are oppressed may only not try to change their situation because they are sacrificing opportunity, for the other 4 universal desires. If the other 4 factors were already achieved, then unhappiness will result from a lack of opportunity/choice.

      Thanks,

      Philanthropy,

    • Steve Orion profile image

      Steve Orion 5 years ago from Tampa, Florida

      "Might I also point out that you changed your tune completely on this 1. because originally you had said "I'd say some people, as strange as it seems, are content with fearing death" Which makes no reference to ability of fearing death, but rather physically experiencing the fear of death, which you yourself have just admitted is not true ^=^ "I don't want to be attacked (which is something that would cause me to fear death)" Your quote specifically says that people are content with fearing death, not having the ability to!"

      That is exactly the misunderstanding you had that I had addressed. I've said the same thing all along, but you when you misunderstood me the first time (or two) I had to further elaborate in a more comprehensive way. Perhaps it was my words that you quoted that caused the mix up,but I'm glad it's been cleared up?

      My point about religion was that, in the presented scenario, the person is NOT sadistic, but killing for what he thought were good reasons. You also mustn't assign some sort of additional label to "religion" and especially a negative one. You could say the promise of paradise, the approval of your Creator. However, these points are useless, as you could raise anyone to hate some other group of people, and then the killing of those people would be internally justified, NOT sadism! I can't remember what point this argument originally sprung from, but I think I rest my case.

      "that humans may be the only ones to gain satisfaction from useless knowledge!" Let me show you how you're wrong here. I said this: "You define knowledge as knowing something that has nothing to do and has no affect on the person's immediate existence." You said: "No, I never put that "limitation" on it. I only said that people gain satisfaction from useless knowledge."

      DO YOU SEE THAT? UP THERE, SEE IT? THE BLATANT CONTRADICTION? Not to sound aggressive, but that's outrageous: I say what you said, then you say that's not true, and say the exact same thing. Please tell me you are getting this? I'm not sure which points are still settled on (if any) but I've addressed any rebuttals of yours to my original points.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Randslam, some people end up with less curiosity, that's true, but I think that there are no humans without any curiosity at all! Even abused children who ended up with severe autism from the lack of stimulation in their lives still showed willingness to learn new things. To that extent, being curious about everything is not universal to a human, but being curious in general is. People ask questions because they want the answer, after all. (or to show off that they do after watching people squirm for the right answer and not finding it)

    • randslam profile image

      Rand Zacharias 5 years ago from Kelowna, British Columbia

      "Humans have a natural curiosity."

      I find this statement to be untrue. For many of us, it is a spark that occurs at various points during a lifetime, but not for all--and certainly not for the majority; the mob of humanity has a very low IQ.

      Many humans wish to hold on to instilled, and usually false, knowledge that has nothing to do with curiosity or proven fact, but rather trained behaviours or ridiculous beliefs--almost anything but the truth.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Yes Steve I understood from the first time that you said it! I was trying to explain to you that feeling the need for the capability of death is not the same as wanting to be in that situation. If that situation was to occur, they would still not want the fear of death.

      It is a means to an ends. What you desire is to survive from the attack, not to fear the death so that you can survive the attack. There is a big difference between desiring an outcome and doing what you think is necessary to get that outcome (in this case survive). So to that end, people never desire to fear death. They might accept that their having the ability to do so is a good idea, but they would never want to use it.

      Having a gun might make people safer, but that doesn't mean they want to be in a position that they have to use it.

      Might I also point out that you changed your tune completely on this 1. because originally you had said "I'd say some people, as strange as it seems, are content with fearing death" Which makes no reference to ability of fearing death, but rather physically experiencing the fear of death, which you yourself have just admitted is not true ^=^ "I don't want to be attacked (which is something that would cause me to fear death)" Your quote specifically says that people are content with fearing death, not having the ability to!

      "If a person kills another for their religion" if it is for their religion then it is because of another reason, because they fear the 2. suffering of eternal punishment or 1. the death by God or by other tribesmen for not doing so. If not for those reasons then he is killing for the satisfaction of killing and it has little to nothing to do with his religion. The word "religion" in itself is not a reason, there needs to be a further explanation such as hell, damnation, suffering, pain, etc. which would comply with fulfilling one of my other 4 points :)

      My points that you disagree with are built on inherent human features,

      Fear of Death (not the ability to) - most of our features are designed so that we may survive

      4. Opportunity - humans have a natural desire to judge/question their authority figures, choices and lifestyle

      5. Knowledge - Humans have a natural curiosity

      Do you disagree with any of these? I can find you vast bodies of evidence for their proof?

      "HOWEVER, you've listed knowledge as meaning this "satisfaction of knowing something that hasn't go immediate value to you." No I didn't! I said that that is what makes us different from other animals, like I already clearly said, wanting to know what the time is, where you are etc. are also examples of knowledge. I never limited knowledge to that ridiculous level of limitation! I said, and that I said with reservation, that humans may be the only ones to gain satisfaction from useless knowledge!

      As for knowledge, I struggle to see your point, do you know of any human that has never asked a question in his life?!?

      I think we are making progress too, our comments are getting shorter, ha,

      Have a good evening,

      Philanthropy,

    • Steve Orion profile image

      Steve Orion 5 years ago from Tampa, Florida

      I just saw your post there after i posted that above response. I think I addressed some of what you said, anyway. Read mine and tell me what you think. (perhaps some headway has been made?) I sure hope so.

    • Steve Orion profile image

      Steve Orion 5 years ago from Tampa, Florida

      Ok, it seems that you misunderstand. I say that people do not want to be put in situations in which they are fearing death. Follow me here, that doesn't mean that they want to be incapable of fearing death, if that situation ever were to occur. You see what I mean? I don't want to be attacked (which is something that would cause me to fear death) but if I was attacked, I wouldn't want to not fear death (and be unaffected about my life being threatened.) See what I mean, now?

      "ou are unhappy with the term "sadistic" although satisfaction must be gained from the killings, very well." No, you clearly defined sadism in your previous post as "If we kill because we enjoy killing, for no other reason than that." If a person kills another for their religion, it isn't sadism, which would be for no reason. Religion isn't a good reason, but it is a reason nonetheless. Sadism would be someone liking to cause pain for the sake of the victim's suffering. You see?

      "They are by no means, a reflection of human behaviour or desire." They certainly are! Are you saying religion and such delusions are not in human nature? Because, in that case, there seem to irreconcilable and fundamental differences in out views of humanity which would make these arguments worthless as we are speaking a different language.

      "Where you and I are arguing is then, that you think there is nothing at all that makes us human, that we are not born with any inherent characteristics?" People are born with inherent traits, and can, indeed, be nurtured against those. I've seem to have lost track on where we are disagreeing. I'm disputing the points you've established and the manner in which you've established them (which doesn't mean I don't like the layout of the Hub lol)

      As for knowledge, an ant seeks "knowledge" that is important for its existence, as a dog does for its own existence, and as people do for their own. We could even look at individuals; scientists seek knowledge about our universe, yet some people aren't concerned with anything that isn't involved with their immediate existence. I'd say "knowledge" is sought by individuals here and there in the human race, and is not universal. HOWEVER, you've listed knowledge as meaning this "satisfaction of knowing something that hasn't go immediate value to you." which not everybody has!

      I list this response to address your reply, but it hasn't a purpose if we think in completely different ways; my thought process factors in circumstance, relativity (the nonscientific kind), and the lives and thoughts of people who have lived completely different lives than I would know.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Steve! I just thought up of some much faster ways of disproving your points :L

      1. People want to be in the state of fear to survive. Why do they want to survive? So they can proceed to live by the other 5 points, in particular 3.

      2. A tribesman being devoted to his God. This is to prevent number 1. and more importantly 2. Suffering. Name me a religion wherein you must kill people, but there is no punishment for not doing so. Religious people commit these atrocities because they are threatened with "eternal damnation" and endless suffering if they do not please their Gods.

      What I am saying then is, people may evaluate themselves which points to sacrifice to achieve the other, but nevertheless, they are still striving for those 5.

      Some people may "want" (or rather force themselves into) a state of fear so that they can leave a legacy, choose, learn or in odd cases not suffer.

      People may give up opportunity so that they can achieve the other 4 points and so on.

      This is a much better explanation. So I've tackled 2 and 3, just 1,3,5 left

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      @Steve Orion,

      You understood what I said, but then you said that they want to be in the state of fear again! I am arguing that it is not a want but a necessity! Just like defending yourself from a murderer.

      You say "people do not want to be put in a situation where they fear death" and then follow it up with "it doesn't mean that people would want to not fear death" :L! Those two are mutually inclusive because If you did not have the capacity to fear death, you wouldn't mind being put in situations where others might feel death.

      "being easily impressionable is a human trait!" Certainly so, but that is not to say that we have inherent characteristics, that if left untouched, would reveal themselves.

      ""healthy" and "normal" are subjective; and irrationality is human nature" I wouldn't say so, healthy and normal are words that dictionaries provide, psychology defines what is normal and what is not normal human behaviour, and by that we base those definitions. No need for clarification on such words when they are finitely defined by professionals!

      "I presented a person who killed, who he viewed, to be evil and against his God." You are unhappy with the term "sadistic" although satisfaction must be gained from the killings, very well. Perhaps then you would accept them to be deemed "delusional". Either way it is a disorder of the human mind, if nothing but the satisfaction of a God who is not certain, it is against human nature, and so a disorder will be there to label these people. They are by no means, a reflection of human behaviour or desire.

      They've asked for no other life, " none was offered to them, if they had the opportunity to escape death, they would, that much is certain of human nature. Deprivation and disorder springs to mind once again. Suicidal is the term given to people willing to risk their own lives for no real cause.

      And regardless, like my hub addresses, even if the choice is one that you might agree with, a person would always prefer that he made that conclusion himself, as part of human nature.

      "To say something is universally desired would mean that all people would be born with those wants in their blood and heart." Rather, in genetics, we are wired to survive, live comfortability, reproduce, explore and think. Do you disagree with any of those points? Those I believe to be universal characteristics. "normal" is not subjective as it can easily be measured. It is what the majority do/want.

      As for your next paragraph I must refer you to the science known as psychology. This is the study of the human brain and character. This science has dedicated itself exactly to find out precisely what I have been referring to: what makes us humans. You seem to be arguing with psychology here and not me. There is such thing as normal behaviour in humans and it is very much identifiable.

      Where you and I are arguing is then, that you think there is nothing at all that makes us human, that we are not born with any inherent characteristics? It seems to be what you are saying with "you assign certain characteristics to human nature and then list "universal" desires that they all the people who fit that description have." By asserting that I "assign certain characteristics to human nature" you are implying that there is no such thing? or that you disagree with mine? Please clarify, because I have a body of evidence to support either conflict ^^

      As for the ant and scale argument. Given the choice of: Having the choice to know or not if we can leave this planet or not, humans will choose to know if we can or not, even if it won't affect their lives physically. Give the choice to the ant of having the choice or not to know if he could escape the bowl, and he would not only not answer, he would not care.

      Thus the ant does not cry due to immobility, because he doesn't even comprehend that there is a problem. Let alone does he care about the knowledge of whether it is possible or not for him to escape.

      The argument then is, give a human the choice to know or to not know, and 99.9% says that he will want to know. Exceptions being in cases of fatal disease where a person would not want to know exactly how long he has left, or in horrific details of events or that which would otherwise affect the person's mentality.

    • Steve Orion profile image

      Steve Orion 5 years ago from Tampa, Florida

      "I said they do not desire the experience of the STATE of fearing death." Ok, people do not want to be put in a situation where they fear death. I understand what you're saying, but know that it doesn't mean that people would want to not fear death in situations where people normally do. Is that the agreement we've reached?

      "That is not an example of human nature, but one of brain washing and distortion of human nature" But!- being easily impressionable is a human trait! Children are born instinctively learning from their parents. Also, word like "healthy" and "normal" are subjective; and irrationality is human nature. We are not intrinsically intelligent, as shown by religion, where we assign false causes to the effects we see. Religion was destined to exist in early man, who did not know why he was here, why anything was here, and why most things he observes (the weather and other geological events) happen.

      "If we kill because we enjoy killing, for no other reason than that, it is a distortion of our nature." Indeed, but never did I present a scenario where that was the case. I presented a person who killed, who he viewed, to be evil and against his God. "Sadism?" No. But it is human nature for cultures to war, and we see willing participants dying for their Gods. They've asked for no other life, as I've said, and never did wanted further "opportunity."

      "Again you are not talking of the nature of the standard human being, but of one deprived, abused and disordered! My hub addresses that these are universal to untainted, uninfluenced human beings!" No such people exist! And even if they did, no one would be able to identify them, as it is all subjective! To say something is universally desired would mean that all people would be born with those wants in their blood and heart. You might as well change the Hub title to, "5 things all people who I consider normal want."

      As I'm taking this response paragraph by paragraph, I now see that you concede to my other point. "So I don't take the argument that "no inherent urge" being present belittles any of my poor 5 points!" Ok, then, you mean "univerrsal desire" as "desired by the indiviuals who I consider pure in their nature and haven't been nurtured into a stray path, in my eyes."

      Humans, indeed, know more and seek to know more than animals. We are naturally more "conscious" of things than they are. And from that, you should say that humans seek knowledge on their scale as dogs do on their own. The whole point of debate, in my view, between us at the moment is that you assign certain characteristics to human nature and then list "universal" desires that they all the people who fit that description have.

      "Most of your arguments are predicated on people being nurtured away from their natural urges which of course is not what the hub is about. Normal people will not be exposed to severe influences like you mention, and will maintain their human desires." Case and point. See above paragraph.

      My point of us not crying due to our immobility is that it is similiar to ants not crying about being stuck in a bowl. It's all about scale.

      Thanks and tell me the counts on which you still disagree so we can narrow them down =)

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      @Steve, I see what you've done but you will soon see how I immediately overlooked the possibility of you saying so!

      "Therefore, to strip themselves of fear of death is NOT a universal desire" You are talking about people who are in dangerous situations who want the ABILITY to fear death in case they need to, so that they know they will survive. That is not, however, what I said, I said they do not desire the experience of the STATE of fearing death.

      Your argument is that they will desire that state so that they can survive. But then what they are actually desiring is to survive. The ends to the means is to survive which is what they desire to make themselves happy.

      Similarly, by your argument, when a man defends himself against a murderer and hits him, you would then have to say that the man desired to hit the murderer, when actually his desire was to defend himself (the ends) by the means of physical violence.

      That is to say, people may do things because they see it is necessary to achieve something. People will put themselves into the state of fear so that they are alert, but they will not ever tell you that they ever desired to do so. When you are forced to do something to survive, it is no longer a desire but a necessity. So therefore, they do not "desire" to be put in the fear of state, but force themselves to do it. People will do things that they would prefer not to (don't desire to do) for a desirable outcome. You cannot say that doing anything at all is a desire, it is predicated on wanting to, not the willingness to.

      So I maintain that the desire that needs to be fulfilled in order to be happy would be not fearing death, because that means that you know you will survive (or accept death).

      "if it had been so instilled in their young minds. Even if the rest of the tribe were wiped out, that one individual would still carry his religion and believe what he did." That is not an example of human nature, but one of brain washing and distortion of human nature ^^ My hub specifies that these points are to those who are not under irrational influences! "every(healthy)being" !

      "You might not think so, but humans are organisms just as any other, and it is perfectly within our capacity, not to mention nature, to kill another human being. One might argue that people who think nothing of killing are humans in their most purest and primal form. The advancement of human society has been based solely on conquering human nature. Call me cynical lol" Humans are indeed organisms of any other, and we do and will kill in the future. The difference however is intention. If we kill because we enjoy killing, for no other reason than that, it is a distortion of our nature. We are not sadistic by nature, and neither, as far as I am aware, are any of the other animals that you refer me to ^^

      "That what they are given is the best thing they can have, they'd have no reason to doubt that and even if there was something better their perception would be so deluded that they wouldn't know it." Again you are not talking of the nature of the standard human being, but of one deprived, abused and disordered! My hub addresses that these are universal to untainted, uninfluenced human beings!

      "They are raised without freedom, happily, and there is NO inherent urge inside them for freedom." Showing no "inherent nurture" is not any evidence to what a human is born with inherently. Why? Because you can teach a human to not want to eat until he dies (monks) and he shows no urges to do so. You can teach one to kill themselves, although once again, there is nothing telling him not to. You can teach them that they are mice or dogs, or to have sex with a cactus. Nurture is far more powerful than nature to the point that all natural urges can be overcome with brainwashing and influence. So I don't take the argument that "no inherent urge" being present belittles any of my poor 5 points!

      That is cause and effect, the Dog associates the bone with pleasure. Does the dog however, sleep easier at night because he knows that his bone was placed in the 3rd draw on the left by his owner? Or that he knows that in 2 years time, he will still be alive because he can trust his owner to feed him? It's that sort of satisfaction of knowing and certainty that I am suggesting may not be present. Not direct cause and effect but satisfaction of knowing something that hasn't go immediate value to you. I'm not ruling out that dogs don't have this, I'm just saying that we definitely do. This also goes against your idea that children are raised without freedom and are happy about it, I think that humans naturally question "is there more" to their lives and "what ifs", and this is shown in our obsession with cosmology, religion and science.

      Are you proposing that humans do not have curiosity from birth?

      Most of your arguments are predicated on people being nurtured away from their natural urges which of course is not what the hub is about. Normal people will not be exposed to severe influences like you mention, and will maintain their human desires.

      We do not cry about being stuck on Earth but it certainly takes away from my personal happiness that we have no choice but to remain here :( okay, sometimes I do cry :'(

      Thanks once again Steve,

      Chat me back

      Philanthropy,

    • Steve Orion profile image

      Steve Orion 5 years ago from Tampa, Florida

      "That's to say that these people without fear of death, would kill themselves!" No no no! Some people fight to live. Yes? There are some people who fight everyday to get food and for safety. Right? We agree up to this point? What I'm saying, is that they fight because, just like any other organismm they fear death. That fear of death pushes them and helps them to survive. Does it not? In that sense, why would they want to lose their fear of death? If they did not fear death, they wouldn't fight so hard to live. Right? That's not to say, if they didn't fear death, they'd kill themselves. Of course not, if they didn't fear death, they wouldn't fight as hard to live and have such a strong natural urge to survive. Understand? Therefore, to strip themselves of fear of death is NOT a universal desire. Meaning not everyone wants to not fear death!

      "Do you think there are people who are happy with achieving nothing on their time on earth?" Not necessarily, as some would define "Achievements" different than others. If you lived on some farm, grew your own food, and lived in solitude (Rare? Yes. Unheard of? No.) and then died, you could look back and say you have enjoyed life and that's that. One might think I'm going into a hypothetical realm where that is not the majorities' case, but universal is all-encompassing, meaning if there have been even a handful of people who didn't care to do anything or leave anything behind and just simply live, then the notion that "a legacy" is a universal desire is false.

      "I think it is human nature to avoid death, and given the choice to peacefully captivate, convert or flee, the tribesmen would have done it, to save his own skin." My God, no! You underestimate the power of the subjectivity of children. They would be more than happy to die for their God, if it had been so instilled in their young minds. Even if the rest of the tribe were wiped out, that one individual would still carry his religion and believe what he did.

      "At the point where you are physically happy to kill other people for religion, I would argue that it is a distortion of human mentality." You might not think so, but humans are organisms just as any other, and it is perfectly within our capacity, not to mention nature, to kill another human being. One might argue that people who think nothing of killing are humans in their most purest and primal form. The advancement of human society has been based solely on conquering human nature. Call me cynical lol

      "if people know that a better option is out there, they will want it." I don't think you understood the full scope of the case I made. I'm speaking of the indoctrination of youth; they are raised thinking that there is no better option! That what they are given is the best thing they can have, they'd have no reason to doubt that and even if there was something better their perception would be so deluded that they wouldn't know it. They are raised without freedom, happily, and there is NO inherent urge inside them for freedom.

      When a dog gets a bone, it is happy, so why not say that all emotional animals desire knowledge of things that would make them happier? And an ant doesn't cry when it's stuck in a bowl, as we don't cry because we are stuck on this bit of cosmic dust called Earth. It's all relative!

      Sorry about the length, I need an editor! =)

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      @steve,

      I can see where you're saying, but I can't see how it works: "the fear of death is what keeps them alive. It's what keeps them fighting." That's to say that these people without fear of death, would kill themselves! I wouldn't say that the only reason these people live is because of fearing death, they see it as something to overcome, because they still have hope. When all hope is lost, people end themselves. It's hope of life that keeps them going, not fear of death :L

      "One might argue over the universality of it, though." Do you think there are people who are happy with achieving nothing on their time on earth? I think to some extent, everybody wants to have some sort of purpose on this earth.

      "That person will happily go to war and die for his tribe and God. He had no say in it, but was eager anyway." Eager maybe, but I doubt happy, I think it is human nature to avoid death, and given the choice to peacefully captivate, convert or flee, the tribesmen would have done it, to save his own skin. At the point where you are physically happy to kill other people for religion, I would argue that it is a distortion of human mentality (disorder) - i.e. sadism. I do not think that oppressed people are happy, with revolutions being the best evidence I can offer of it being in human nature to demand freedom.

      "How could someone who has never had the experience of something else, seek opportunity?" By knowing of something else. Provided they are not entirely deprived off the outside world (which would lead to autism), if people know that a better option is out there, they will want it. Even children at school are unhappy that the they're forced to go there, yet they speak nothing of school when they voluntary choose to, (higher education) . And I would argue that the fact that the culture of passing down one's profession to their children has died out, shows that people do not want to be told how to live their lives. Of course these people will still say they are "happy" but if they had chosen their father's profession themselves and everything else, they will have reached absolute happiness in the field of choice. It does not apply to all choice of course, I do not regret that my mother gave birth to me without my saying so, or that trees exist without my saying so, I understand this is to protect me. But if I was deprived off all personal choice, I would not be happy. Point 4 was addressing freedom - If I knew that there was no way of changing the law in this country to how I see fit, I would not be happy until I fix it so that there is. Perhaps I should have called it freedom?

      And as for knowledge being desired in all animals, although you could look at it that an ant desires to know where it's leaf is, it does not as far as I know gain a pleasurable response (serotonin) of knowing where it is, like a human or other more evolved animal. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, humans are happy with knowing certain things, even if they can't change it (but much happier if they can, because not knowing how to change it will be the next saddening prospect). An ant would not be happy to know that there is life on mars, or more basically, that it will be able to eat tomorrow, it only does these actions out of instinct. I for one have never seen an ant crying because it is stuck in a kitchen bowl ^^ Or because it does not know the whereabouts of it's children :L Neither have I seen any that are proud to know that they can recite the periodic table (or ant equivalent), but humans take joy in knowing ^^.

      Thanks for your time and comments Steve,

      Philanthropy :)

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      @steve,

      I can see where you're saying, but I can't see how it works: "the fear of death is what keeps them alive. It's what keeps them fighting." That's to say that these people without fear of death, would kill themselves! I wouldn't say that the only reason these people live is because of fearing death, they see it as something to overcome, because they have hope. When all hope is lost, people end themselves. It's hope of life that keeps them going, not fear of death :L

      "One might argue over the universality of it, though." Do you think there are people who are happy with achieving nothing on their time on earth? I think to some extent, everybody wants to have some sort of purpose on this earth.

      "That person will happily go to war and die for his tribe and God. He had no say in it, but was eager anyway." Eager maybe, but I doubt happy, I think it is human nature to avoid death, and given the choice to peacefully captivate, convert or flee, the tribesmen would have done it, to save his own skin. At the point where you are physically happy to kill other people for religion, I would argue that it is a distortion of human mentality (disorder) - i.e. sadism. I do not think that oppressed people are happy, with revolutions being the best evidence I can offer of it being in human nature to demand freedom.

      "How could someone who has never had the experience of something else, seek opportunity?" By knowing of something else. Provided they are not entirely deprived off the outside world (which would lead to autism), if people know that a better option is out there, they will want it. Even children at school are unhappy that the they're forced to go there, yet they speak nothing of school when they voluntary choose to, (higher education) . And I would argue that the fact that the culture of passing down one's profession to their children has died out, shows that people do not want to be told how to live their lives. Of course these people will still say they are "happy" but if they had chosen their father's profession themselves and everything else, they will have reached absolute happiness in the field of choice. It does not apply to all choice of course, I do not regret that my mother gave birth to me without my saying so, or that trees exist without my saying so, I understand this is to protect me. But if I was deprived off all personal choice, I would not be happy. Point 4 was addressing freedom - If I knew that there was no way of changing the law in this country to how I see fit, I would not be happy until I fix it so that there is. Perhaps I should have called it freedom?

      And as for knowledge being desired in all animals, although you could look at it that an ant desires to know where it's leaf is, it does not as far as I know gain a pleasurable response (serotonin) of knowing where it is, like a human or other more evolved animal. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, humans are happy with knowing certain things, even if they can't change it (but much happier if they can, because not knowing how to change it will be the next saddening prospect). An ant would not be happy to know that there is life on mars, or more basically, that it will be able to eat tomorrow, it only does these actions out of instinct. I for one have never seen an ant crying because it is stuck in a kitchen bowl ^^ Or because it does not know the whereabouts of it's children :L

      Thanks for your time and comments Steve,

      Philanthropy :)

    • Steve Orion profile image

      Steve Orion 5 years ago from Tampa, Florida

      "Is this to propose that these people would rather be in the state of fearing death than not? Given the choice, would you say they would choose to stay in life threatening circumstances?" I'm saying that some people who struggle to survive, i.e. in developing countries that might be war-torn or devoid of food, find that the fear of death is what keeps them alive. It's what keeps them fighting. If someone did not fear death, they why would they make such an effort to live? You could say, "for their love of their life." but it is fear of death that drives someone to survive incredible hardships, not the love of life. (if that makes sense?)

      If one's legacy were to be meant as their contribution to humanity, while not being acknowledged, then yes, you're right on that count. One might argue over the universality of it, though.

      "The point being that people who are forced into fighting for their country, as exemplified by 'traitors' among all ranks, with the added detail that being happy with murdering other people would be sadism as already covered in "suffering", can't be happy people, but can of course still feel positive emotion as a result of good fortune." I was thinking on a more tribal scale of war and a more primal manner of human. Here's what I meant: a person is raised in some village with some religion and is taught to worship their God, and that the neighboring tribes worship a competing God and are infidels and must be killed. That person will happily go to war and die for his tribe and God. He had no say in it, but was eager anyway.

      And regarding your case of the traitors in war, yes, most people would like opportunity. It is not, however, universal! On a less violent case, one might, in the past, be raised to be a locksmith or a baker or butcher or anything like that. They are born, taught the trade, work, and die. They never have some inherent urge to choose for themselves what they'd like to do. How could someone who has never had the experience of something else, seek opportunity?

      As for your rebuttal concerning the desire for knowledge, if you're defining it that way, then all organisms desire knowledge. A dog desires to know where its bone is, an ant desires to know where food is, and even viruses "desire" to "know" where potential hosts are. So on this count, this is indeed a universal desire.

      Let me know if you disagree with anything I've said, as, if I'm wring, I desire correction! =)

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Thanks Steve, and by all means, playing devil's advocate is certainly useful for everyone:

      "I'd say some people, as strange as it seems, are content with fearing death" Is this to propose that these people would rather be in the state of fearing death than not? Given the choice, would you say they would choose to stay in life threatening circumstances?

      At which point I dare say that is masochism, a disorder of the brain and so is not inclusive of human nature.

      "I'd think "legacy" would mean that someone can acknowledge your efforts or achievements" at least by the dictionary definition it means 'something handed down from an ancestor or a predecessor or from the past' which does not necessitate acknowledgment of the ancestor, but acknowledgement that it exists. So to speak, planting a tree is leaving a legacy for future generations, regardless of whether or not the planter is acknowledged. Thereafter, I would say that "content to have done their part" providing their part was at all productive would mean that they passed the legacy of their efforts down to future generations. Though I take your point that legacy is most commonly used in a physical and acknowledgeable sense, It does not have to be ^^. (Hence the examples such as looking after a pet or building a bridge, just the knowledge that you have allowed it's existence is sufficient).

      "Some people grow up and die in the name of their country, family, religion etc" I would not say that being overjoyed means happiness for it can be only temporary. Clinically depressed people may be overjoyed yet by virtue of definition are not happy.

      The point being that people who are forced into fighting for their country, as exemplified by 'traitors' among all ranks, with the added detail that being happy with murdering other people would be sadism as already covered in "suffering", can't be happy people, but can of course still feel positive emotion as a result of good fortune.

      I do not think that any sane human being is capable of murdering for pleasure, the constant need for morale boosting and reassurance that soldiers aren't going to die gives off the impression that they weren't happy to begin with either, needing brainwashing to get them through the difficult situation they find themselves in.

      Another way to look at it is, given the choice between fighting abroad and a well paid safe job, most people would choose the well paid safe job. It is only out of necessity that people fight in wars. Part of being willing to risk your life is not valuing it enough to protect it, giving off the impression that you are not happy with your life.

      "The mass majority of every population, and especially in modern times, could not have cared less about relativity or gravity or anything pertaining to the cosmos" You have made the mistake of assuming that knowledge only includes scientific knowledge. Knowing the time, knowing where you are, if you're going to survive til tomorrow, how to cure your disease and that your children are safe, are all examples of things that most people want to know. Knowledge here encompasses everything and is an attack on regimes who forbid particular knowledges to the populace, like basic education. This is a play on the curiosity of a human. We have this desire, to know, and not fulfilling it brings us sadness. This is perfectly exemplified by both religion and superstition, wherein these things were invented for being used as knowledge, if we were content with not knowing, we would have just left the questions of our existence alone, and never thought about them ever again ^^. If we were content with ignorance, we would all kill ourselves, many survive on the hope that their children will survive in this world, the need to know whether they will often keeps them going through difficult and torturous situations. If humans had no desire to learn, we would have no desire to live.

      Thank you for taking the time to think of the opposing views, if you have any qualms with what I have said, let the battle continue! Thank you for your kind comments,

      Philanthropy, :)

    • Steve Orion profile image

      Steve Orion 5 years ago from Tampa, Florida

      Philanthropy2012 brings us another great Hub! I'll play devil's advocate, for fun.

      Wanting to not fear death: I'd say some people, as strange as it seems, are content with fearing death. Maybe it helps them stay alive, if they are struggling for survival, or help them appreciate the life they live, if they aren't.

      Not suffering: I can't make any contributions here, as you already covered masochists! =)

      Leaving a legacy: I'd think "legacy" would mean that someone can acknowledge your efforts or achievements; many people don't need to be remembered and are content to have done their part, even though their name may go on to be nothing but a record in a database and an imprint on a rotting grave.

      Opportunity: Some people grow up and die in the name of their country, family, religion etc. They have no say in the matter, and may be overjoyed to do it as it brings them pride. They don't know, perhaps, that the choice was made for them, but never feel the need to break off to something else or have a say in what they'd like to do.

      Knowledge: You remark on blissful ignorance, which rather invalidates the whole paragraph. To say that knowledge is universally sought isn't a notion I'd agree with. The majority of scientific discoveries have been made, to my recollection, by individuals who have striven to further the knowledge of the universe. The mass majority of every population, and especially in modern times, could not have cared less about relativity or gravity or anything pertaining to the cosmos. They either were content with their ignorance, or assigned themselves false knowledge (religion and superstition)

      lol sorry for the long comment, just wanted to bring some points up =) Keep up the great work!

    • randslam profile image

      Rand Zacharias 5 years ago from Kelowna, British Columbia

      Nice simplicity in your piece...a little general in its universality...but it covers the big "what ifs".

      Thanks, voted up, interesting and useful.

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Thank you mistyhorizon :) I am also still thinking about the love one, I wouldn't want to offend anyone who has not felt loved in their life but yet still managed to end up happy by mentioning it, but on the other hand, most people judge their happiness by what their friends/family/society think. It would take a very strong individual to be happy without anyone showing him any love at all :o

      I don't know, I'm torn, I'll sleep on it!

      And yes, children aren't the only way to feel like you have purpose, some would say that 7 billion people are enough already! Just to help the world, give more than you take, should be everyone's primary purpose. After that it's optional!

      Have a good evening,

      Philanthropy :)

    • mistyhorizon2003 profile image

      Cindy Lawson 5 years ago from Guernsey (Channel Islands)

      An excellent Hub and I found this fascinating. With regards to needing love or not, I am not sure. Needing to be 'in love' or have someone 'in love with us', probably not essential, but being loved, as in by friends and family, then I would say yes, we do need this.

      What about needing 'a sense of purpose' as in a reason to be here. This may fall under the 'leaving a legacy' heading I guess, or at least it is pretty close. I can't have children so feel a sense of being unable to 'serve a purpose' in many ways, but I try to make myself feel useful by acting as an agony aunt on several of the hubs I have written, doing favours for other people around me and saving as many small creatures as I can that are either in the clutches of my cats, or are injured, or wandering around in the road etc (think hedgehogs). This is what makes me feel I have a purpose and that I justify me place on this earth.

    • profile image

      AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

      Hi Philanthropy,

      Its a good question. Do we need love to be happy?

      I am lucky enough to have been loved by my mother and step father. But I have met people for whom that was not the case who now profess to be happy.

      I would have said I was happy before I met my wife. (and truth to tell there are days when I am not, even with the love we share).

      But I am certain I am happier loving my wife than I was before I did.

      Very subjective, so fair not to include it.

      But I suspect the world would be in better shape if everyone loved and was loved.

      cheers

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Anton,

      Thanks and I of course agree that the law should be based on morals here and now rather than antiquated/politically manipulated texts of the past. Democratically elected perhaps.

      As for love, I wasn't sure. Is it completely necessary to feel love for somebody, I can't quite say. Maybe not having felt love, I cannot truly say what is happiness. But I myself say that I am happy (denial perhaps?) and although have had partners have witnessed no love :o Unless you mean love of family and love of material objects but I don't think either are completely necessary.

      I think like always I will have to make an honourable mentions section, thanks again Anton, always helpful, and I await to see what you say about Love in your new Hub!

      Thanks & have a good evening,

      Philanthropy,

    • profile image

      AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago

      Hi, Philanthropy,

      Good hub. I agree any system of law should focus on this train of thought, rather than on someone's notion of truth found in old books.

      Just because I'm in the middle of the 'love' hub, where does love figure into the five universal factors? I think being loved is a major factor to happiness. It certainly was to mine, although I might of argued otherwise when I was younger.

      cheers

    • Philanthropy2012 profile image
      Author

      DK 5 years ago from London

      Absolutely jenbouka, life is precious. It hurts me to think that some get a lot less than others.

      thanks for the kind comment,

      Philanthropy,

    • profile image

      jenubouka 5 years ago

      There is a saying: To accept your death it is only then you can begin to live.

      I really believe that.

      Great hub, as always.