The Necessity of a "Feeling-Detector"

If only there exists a "feeling-detector" which measures maturity, sincerity, understanding and intuition. At least that would clarify alot of things and say alot of our current positions without the need to prove them. This begs the question: why do we need to prove them?

Is this so called "need" the remnants of an inherently human nature in the Hobbes sense? Or a faintest reminder that the almost biological character of humans is still lurking somewhere beneath the veil of civil progression? Is materialism embedded in the post-modern culture? If so, it seems to suggest that there are indivisible basic features of society which run across the dimension of time. These features seem to possess the quality of energy: imperishable and unperturbed by the thoery of relativity in the sociological sense. They take various forms across social epochs with the condition that its true functions remain intact. In my opinion, this condition will last for as long as the population is being organised in the conventional way called society.

This argument raises another question which could diminish the need to answer the first one: does this "need" exists at all to begin with? As my socialisation process used to tell me, it could all just be a state of mind. Which may be rightly so, since I could never prove its existence. Then again, nor could I prove otherwise. Why should there be a presumption that nothing which can be proven to exist, never existed? Because that would mean that anything exists? But that does not necessarily follow that what cannot be proven to exist, does not exist, does it? The presumption may only be justified by the mere reason that scientists will not be faced with an infinite amount of possibilities. But this would mean that the human species may never discover the unthinkable-because they never existed as far as the presumption is concerned.

Presumptions aside, the question remains: assuming that the "need" did existed, what is the reason behind its existence? I come to a teleological conundrum in interpreting the "need" from a functionalist argument: it exists only because it must have served a function, yet it serves a function because it existed. I noticed a fallacy though, in this tautology: it seems impossible that it is capable of existing because it served a function; a function cannot be the reason for its existence-existence in essence should be the antecedent of function. But this would undermine the function in the objectively-existent sense being a lesser form of existence than existence itself. The argument runs.

From another angle of what my socialisation process constantly tells me (this view often being the more dominant one) is that the "need" exists to further the agenda of a massive conpsiracy at operation (here we go again, i know!) This is the most irritatingly paranoid view that constantly questions everything. But to adopt such a view would mean that altruism is merely a farce. Is that really so? At times it appears that way. But that doesn't mean that it really is that way just because it appears so, does it?

I find myself reluctant to answer the question that I've unnecessarily came up with. On the one hand, it would seem that there is a need to prove them to be acknowledged. On the other, there may be no answer to it since the "need" may not exist in the first place. If the latter prevails in truth (and I meant the objective truth-if it ever existed), than there would be no need to have a "feeling-detector"; the only need being mental rest.