The missing apex of Maslow's hierarchy: self-transcendence
Maslow’s famous “hierarchy of needs” is questioned here on both historical and scientific grounds, with several pointing out that Maslow never drew the iconic pyramid and that later research finds the model weak as a predictive theory. Commenters debate whether self-transcendence belongs at the apex—or alongside—all other needs, and whether genuine concern for others emerges only after basic needs are met or operates in parallel at every level. The exchange broadens into arguments over materialist vs spiritual explanations of mind and meaning, and whether concepts like faith, community and transcendence are necessary for a coherent justification for living.
Maslow’s Hierarchy vs. Pyramid and Scientific Status
- Multiple comments note Maslow never drew a pyramid; the iconic pyramid was added later by consultants.
- Others argue that while the pyramid graphic is later, Maslow clearly described a hierarchy of needs in his 1943 paper.
- Several point out the original work was more essay/philosophy than empirical science, lacking rigorous research methods.
- Some see this as disqualifying; others say even a non-rigorous model can still be “good enough” to spur useful discussion.
Validity and Usefulness of the Theory
- A cited 1970s study found Maslow’s theory not well supported empirically; some extrapolate this to criticize social science more broadly.
- Others say they still find the framework personally helpful for self-reflection, values, and moral intuitions.
- There is disagreement over whether the hierarchy implies strict sequential stages or overlapping needs that are always present to varying degrees.
Nature and Placement of Self-Transcendence
- Some argue self-transcendence appears at all levels (e.g., starving people sharing food, animals sacrificing for kin).
- Others distinguish instinctual or tribal altruism from a more universal, mindful transcendence.
- One view: self-transcendence belongs “beside” the hierarchy, influencing behavior at each level rather than sitting at the apex.
- Another view: the pyramid is a misleading shape; higher needs and belonging/self-transcendence often develop in parallel once basics are minimally met.
Spirituality, Faith, and Materialism
- Long subthread debates whether some form of “faith” or spiritual belief is necessary for an ego or for justifying living.
- Materialist positions emphasize emergent properties of the brain and point to neurological evidence linking brain and mind.
- Non-materialist positions suggest mind or “pure awareness” as a fundamental aspect of reality, not reducible to matter.
- There is contention over the word “faith”: whether it includes everyday assumptions and trust, or should be reserved for more committed, possibly religious, beliefs.
Community, Religion, and Modern Equivalents
- Several comments note that self-transcendence closely connects to belonging and caring for community; losing community can undermine even basic needs.
- Others see the article’s theme as a modern restatement of long-standing religious or educational ideals (e.g., older university or Indigenous frameworks).
- Some argue “no-religion” cultures recreate religious-like structures around technology, wealth, or ideology, effectively creating “new gods.”