Do Hunger Strikes create doubt about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs?

[ShadowsOfParadox]

Textbook reports that some researchers doubt the Hierarchy because of examples of people seeking higher needs before lower ones, the only example presented was Hunger Strikes.

Personally I think that the definition of Hunger Strikes precludes them from disproving it because it's not a Hunger Strike if there's any doubt about the possiblity of you properly fulfilling the hunger need. Or if you hadn't previously been fulfilling it.

 

[Deleted member]

I don’t believe in Maslow’s theory at all, a human focused on the Sattvic or upwards principle can perfectly ignore it. It is a Tamasic theory for modern times.

 

[Scottty]

It's only incompatible if you confuse a general tendency with an absolute law.

Human beings are not all alike in what they seek or want, or what they will put before other things.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

human focused on the Sattvic or upwards principle can perfectly ignore it. It is a Tamasic theory for modern times.

beyond "modern times" I'm genuinely not sure what basically any of your complicated words mean... but here's a question. Is an Ascetic still Ascetic if their surrounding society is just as Ascetic as they are due entirely to what resources they have?

 

[Deleted member]

beyond "modern times" I'm genuinely not sure what basically any of your complicated words mean... but here's a question. Is an Ascetic still Ascetic if their surrounding society is just as Ascetic as they are due entirely to what resources they have?

Yes, because thoughts and mindset matter.

 

[Marduk]

Textbook reports that some researchers doubt the Hierarchy because of examples of people seeking higher needs before lower ones, the only example presented was Hunger Strikes.

Personally I think that the definition of Hunger Strikes precludes them from disproving it because it's not a Hunger Strike if there's any doubt about the possiblity of you properly fulfilling the hunger need. Or if you hadn't previously been fulfilling it.

I think the Hierarchy needs a "on average, in long term, barring extreme circumstances" caveat.
It also works much better as a weighting system for particular needs, rather than an absolute ranking or sequence. After all, people sacrificing a little sleep or going on a diet to get a lot in some of the higher needs is a common phenomenon.
Also hunger strikes rarely go to the degree of real threat to health and life.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

Yes, because thoughts and mindset matter.

Well, a bathtub is still a massive downgrade from a hut.

 

[FriedCFour]

Personally I think that the definition of Hunger Strikes precludes them from disproving it because it's not a Hunger Strike if there's any doubt about the possiblity of you properly fulfilling the hunger need. Or if you hadn't previously been fulfilling it.

I would also say because most hunger strikes in the modern era are complete fucking jokes. I have not seen one recently where it was an honest to gods hunger strike. Prisons they tend to refuse cafeteria food but buy snacks from the commisary still. I believe famously in Israel there is footage of a leader of a strike wolfing down a Pizza. Student ones tend to be on a rotating basis, as in some students sit there and miss a meal or two and then leave and new ones come in and replace them.

 

[Deleted member]

I would also say because most hunger strikes in the modern era are complete fucking jokes. I have not seen one recently where it was an honest to gods hunger strike. Prisons they tend to refuse cafeteria food but buy snacks from the commisary still. I believe famously in Israel there is footage of a leader of a strike wolfing down a Pizza. Student ones tend to be on a rotating basis, as in some students sit there and miss a meal or two and then leave and new ones come in and replace them.

The PIRA hunger strikers in the early 80s were some of the last sincere ones.

 

[FriedCFour]

The PIRA hunger strikers in the early 80s were some of the last sincere ones.

That's exactly where my mind went, given one famously died.

 

[Deleted member]

@FriedCFour actually a total of ten died; Sands, the most famous, was just the first during the '81 Hunger Strike. Whatever you think of their politics or terrorism, they were courageous, nobody can deny that. It's one thing to face a bullet and another to wake up each day and intentionally, against the offerings of hundreds of people around you, to drag yourself another agonising inch closer to death.

 

[ShieldWife]

I admire anybody who is willing to suffer, risk their lives, or even sacrifice their lives for a cause that they believe in.

 

[Deleted member]

I admire anybody who is willing to suffer, risk their lives, or even sacrifice their lives for a cause that they believe in.

Indeed, that is precisely honour and virtue, and it is true even in those who deserve to die.

 

[Darth Robbhi]

Textbook reports that some researchers doubt the Hierarchy because of examples of people seeking higher needs before lower ones, the only example presented was Hunger Strikes.

Personally I think that the definition of Hunger Strikes precludes them from disproving it because it's not a Hunger Strike if there's any doubt about the possiblity of you properly fulfilling the hunger need. Or if you hadn't previously been fulfilling it.

Modern hunger strikes are essentially betting that the population believes in Maslow's hierarchy and is willing to cave to ensure you don't die.

 

[Lanmandragon]

Indeed, that is precisely honour and virtue, and it is true even in those who deserve to die.

Alot of folks can't separate the two. For me the best example is the USSR during WW2. Yes they were commies and yes commies are evil. That doesn't mean that they weren't brave and frankly great warriors.

 

[Deleted member]

Alot of folks can't separate the two. For me the best example is the USSR during WW2. Yes they were commies and yes commies are evil. That doesn't mean that they weren't brave and frankly great warriors.

Oh yes, I extend it even to commanders. Trotsky was a wickedly evil Bolshevik tyrant and merciless butcher. He was also a brilliant military commander and personally brave man, predominantly modest and moral in his personal conduct.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

Oh yes, I extend it even to commanders. Trotsky was a wickedly evil Bolshevik tyrant and merciless butcher. He was also a brilliant military commander and personally brave man, predominantly modest and moral in his personal conduct.

Snowball was a complex figure wasn't he? Definitely didn't deserve that axe to the head.

 

[Deleted member]

Snowball was a complex figure wasn't he? Definitely didn't deserve that axe to the head.

Before the revolution he would have sat in a café in Vienna in exile and very politely debated philosophy, history, politics, economics with you. Then he would have organised the execution of half your home village as enemies of the revolution by his Red Army of Workers and Peasants after the War began.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Textbook reports that some researchers doubt the Hierarchy because of examples of people seeking higher needs before lower ones, the only example presented was Hunger Strikes.

Personally I think that the definition of Hunger Strikes precludes them from disproving it because it's not a Hunger Strike if there's any doubt about the possiblity of you properly fulfilling the hunger need. Or if you hadn't previously been fulfilling it.

People are ignorant of how the hierarchy works, news at eleven.


The stuff at the top is more important, but less immediate. So people will try first to alleviate their lower order needs, but inevitably be willing to sacrifice lower order needs for higher order needs.

Nobody gets how this fucking thing works.

 

[Scottty]

Snowball was a complex figure wasn't he? Definitely didn't deserve that axe to the head.

Depends on what measure of "deserve" you are using.
By normal people standards, he deserved far worse.
By commie standards? Well, they don't work on what people deserve to start with.