Whether a will is involved in an involuntary reacton (like the breathing reflex) very much depends on the definition of what constitues an aware being.
For example, I press a light switch, the electric circuit closes, the electrons flow and the light bulb starts to glow. In a sense, this system is aware of something, namely whether the circuit is closed or open. It reacts to that with the glowing of the light bulb.
Is this system an aware being? Do the electrons have the will to flow? Do they have an absolute need to do so? Honestly, I can't say.
I agree that it's a valid position to say that the body doesn't "want" to survive and rather just reacts to stuff. In that case, the body doesn't have a will, since it lacks awareness. Without awareness, can there be a need for something at all?
Meaning, if something has awareness, it has a will and it can find out what that will is, but where do you draw the line between aware and not aware?
If you can't resist eating sweets, for example, then that is because you have many desires. One of these is "eat sweets", another might be "don't get fat".
As an aware being, you can find your will and see if that is to eat the sweets or not.
You could call these desires "needs", of course, that wouldn't be wrong.
If you derive the noun "need" from the verb "need", however, then I think you have to take it in the context of needing something, because you want something else. You need(the verb) food because you want to survive. That doesn't mean (to use Hoth's words) that there's an absolute need(the noun) for food. If you take away the goal, the need vanishes with it, because it is dependent on the goal.
Basically, if it is your goal/will to survive, you will need food. I'd say that therefore it is within your will to have food.
Seen that way, there are no needs as such. If I understand you correctly, you would say that in the above case, there is now a need for food. Which I can't argue against. Both are valid interpretations of the noun "need".
The point is, there is a valid, non-contradictory interpretation of "need" such that the statement "There are no needs, only wants" is valid.
If I use your (equally valid) interpretation of "need", then that statement becomes invalid.
-><-
Cardinal Tars Tarkas, KSC |
