Does The Universe Need Me?. Raphael Dorsainvil

them first and foremost or exclusively. Some may feel a low amount self-worth by failing to commit and act of kindness when they feel that they should have; in contrast, some may feel a high level of self-worth by committing an act of kindness proper.

      Human goodness and importance is comprehensible in some capacity that is potentially expressed as a variation or a spectrum, but universal need and its relation to human goodness and or importance is difficult to comprehend.

      Universal need signifies indispensability. The universe needs humans, necessarily, to function. The term “need” and its imposition on the universe from a human outlook, leaves the universe personified. Need from a human perspective in relation to the universe involves emotions such as ones feelings of importance or goodness and possibly other emotions. From the human perspective, need has an emotional connotation, but from the perspective of the universe, what connotation does need have? From the perspective of the universe, need may comprise a mechanistic connation, preventing emotion from being imposed. The mechanistic connation seemingly describes universal need as causal in its use of human beings, in that they are mere systems of molecules interacting with other molecules.

      To claim that universal need has a mechanistic connotation is less risky then claiming universal need has a mechanistic denotation. The mechanistic perception of the universe is an imposition itself; it is an imposition of human intellectualization on the processes of the universe. Scientific belief systems that are wrought to explain instances in reality, explain a given reality, but the explanation may not be an infallible reflection of the reality itself.

      Universal need explained in terms of causality may not be causal at all. Causation may not exist in the universe; causation may be a human artifice that allows us to organize the complexity of reality in our minds in approximation. Typically and justifiably, observations about the world through rigorous empirical methods are considered the denotative account of the items being examined. Conventional thinking has accepted this precept with good reason. The subject of hypotheses have to be tested to make sure that they are⎯what they are proposed to be. However, considering the complexity of the universe, observations made about the universe on many levels should always be made tentatively and carefully, and not with absolute certainty, and universal need from the perspective of the universe as oppose to the human perspective, is not exempt. With the preceding in mind, how can we conclusively denote that the universe needs us in a mechanistic manner through testing? Again, such a conclusion would be rather arduous to realize. The mechanistic perspective may not be the explanatory terminus, if testing is not possible.

      Trough a mechanistic lens, molecules interact with other molecules in many capacities including the interaction of molecules of human lung tissue with air molecules. Does understanding this particular molecular interaction within the context of universal need, indicate that the universe needs us?

      The mechanistic perspective may not answer the question of what universal need is from the standpoint of the universe, for how can we conclude that the universe needs us from understanding molecular interaction? Accordingly, we are led back to the issue of questioning the construct of universal need. Is it causal, correlative, emotional, or non-existent? Whatever the answer may be, the mechanistic perspective albeit traditionally useful, may not help us in this case, for in contrariety, the universe may need humans in an emotional manner. However, even if the universe indeed needed humans emotionally, what would be the constitutive nature of universal emotion?

      In order to answer this question, the mechanistic perspective would have to be invoked. How can empiricism formulate tests to come to a conclusion about the existence of universal emotion? The degree of difficulty in answering this question is inconceivable. How is universal emotion recognizable? For example, what would universal emotional dependency look like? When humans are emotionally dependant, certain symptoms are pronounced, and they are recognized by systemic observation, but what empirical methodology can delineate when the universe is being emotionally dependant?

      Again, answering these questions is arduous, and the employment of empirical methodologies is essential, but also ineffective because of the prodigious level of difficulty in forming conclusions about the intrinsic nature of universal need.

      Understanding universal need from the human perspective is feasible, but understanding the universal need from the standpoint of the universe is not so feasible. Human emotions can be measured in some empirical facet, but measuring universal need from the standpoint of the universe, inclusive of all possible intrinsic proponents, is incalculably difficult.