"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.