Philosophy is created by belief!

[Sculptor]

I do not NEED anything. I might want a new computer.

Then you don't need a car or a bus either. I am sure the computer shop (from the next town) delivers.

I do not think I need anything. I do not even need to live.

You have to be alive to have "wants". Why do you want to breathe?

Hold your breath for 15 minutes to demonstrate breathing is a want and not a need.

It is neither a want or a need. It is not a want since I do not actively or consciously want to breath. Yes, it can be a need, But only if my objective is to continue to live.
Game set and match I think.

[Sculptor]

Nope.
I do not NEED anything. I might want a new computer. I might want to have dinner with Lady Gaga, but I do not think I need anything. I do not even need to live.

Very good, Sculptor. It's only if you want to live that you will need anything. Nothing is needed to die, death is the default consequence of pursuing nothing.

Indeed.
And if my objective is to continue to live there are many things I shall need to complete that objective.

[RCSaunders]

Indeed.
And if my objective is to continue to live there are many things I shall need to complete that objective.

Just so!

[Skepdick]

It is neither a want or a need.

Perfect! So if it's not a need, stop doing it for 15 minutes.

Thank goodness for your autonomous nervous system. Given your special needs, you might forget to breathe if it was up to you.

It is not a want since I do not actively or consciously want to breath.

So your criterion for "want" is that it must be a conscious act? Perfect again!

Yes, it can be a need, But only if my objective is to continue to live.

When did you actively and consciously decide that you want to continue to live?

What was your objective before that?

[Skepdick]

Nothing is needed to die. Death is the default consequence of pursuing nothing.

More nonsense.

Death is the default consequence of pursuing everything also. Death is the consequence of life.

If your objective is to die first you need to be alive.
If your objective is to pursue truth, first you need to be alive.

You need to be alive before you can make any choices.

[Sculptor]

When did you actively and consciously decide that you want to continue to live?

When I decided my objective was to beat cancer.
For that I needed radiation and chemotherapy.

[Skepdick]

When I decided my objective was to beat cancer.
For that I needed radiation and chemotherapy.

So you weren't dead when you made that decision?

Because it seems to me you needed to be alive before you could decide to stay that way.

Game, set and what?

[Sculptor]

When I decided my objective was to beat cancer.
For that I needed radiation and chemotherapy.

So you weren't dead when you made that decision?

Congratulations!!!!!!
You have won the prize for the stupidest comment of the week.

[Skepdick]

Congratulations!!!!!!
You have won the prize for the stupidest comment of the week.

I am merely pointing out that you NEED to be alive before you can have any wants, or objectives. Or cancer.

You snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

If it's stupid and it wins the argument, it isn't stupid.

[Sculptor]

Congratulations!!!!!!
You have won the prize for the stupidest comment of the week.

I am merely pointing out that you NEED to be alive before you can have any wants, or objectives. Or cancer.

You snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

If it's stupid and it wins the argument, it isn't stupid.

LOL. There you do again!!
"Need to be alive" is nonsense. You are either alive or not. If not you are in no condition to NEED anything since you do not even exist. A thing that does not exist is not a thing at all and has no needs.

[commonsense]

Just drop it, both of you.

[Eodnhoj7]

For myself I tend to never use "belief" since that can be used to state sure knowledge and faith based assertions; this makes the meaning of the word ambiguous.

All words are inherently ambiguous, including these.

It is why trying to make a rigorous philosophy that resides in the domain of words is entirely futile.

A rigorous philosophy would require progressively atomizing one assumption into another without end. Rigor is a contradiction as no solution can be made present that is final.

[A_Seagull]

For myself I tend to never use "belief" since that can be used to state sure knowledge and faith based assertions; this makes the meaning of the word ambiguous.

All words are inherently ambiguous, including these.

It is why trying to make a rigorous philosophy that resides in the domain of words is entirely futile.

A rigorous philosophy would require progressively atomizing one assumption into another without end. Rigor is a contradiction as no solution can be made present that is final.

No it wouldn't and no it isn't.

[surreptitious57]

The beliefs in your head are not and cannot be circular

The beliefs in your head most definitely can be circular hence cognitive dissonance
There is no requirement for human beings to be able to think logically all the time

[Skepdick]

The beliefs in your head most definitely can be circular hence cognitive dissonance
There is no requirement for human beings to be able to think logically all the time

Circles only exist in 2-dimensional space.

If you think your mind is 2-dimensional, and your beliefs exist on such a trivial landscape... OK.