Upon first encountering the term “separate satisfaction,” the concept that immediately comes to mind is the idea that “human needs are multi-layered.” To put it extremely, both the rich and the poor are still human beings, but one seeks entertainment while the other seeks money. Their needs are clearly incompatible. If we consider people from different social standings or situations, their needs become even more complex and diverse. This naturally leads us to think of strategies for identifying needs and tackling them separately.

Of course, the author’s meaning likely extends beyond this.

When it comes to the difference between the two concepts, the primary distinction seems to lie in the focus.

As the author states, those seeking equivalent satisfaction are focused on the value of what they give, comparing it with the value of what they receive from others. The judgments made in the process are all subjective, and the focus throughout remains on oneself.

This isn’t to suggest that selfishness is inherently wrong; it’s simply that with a broader perspective, one can see greater benefits from larger self-interest, offering better value. If, along the way, one can alleviate the pain of others, it might add some meaning to the process.

On the other hand, separate satisfaction differs because it requires us to see and understand the needs of others. It encourages us to consider and reflect on the circumstances and issues faced by both ourselves and others. This involves not only a multi-layered observation of others but also a multi-layered challenge to our own selves. It’s not about immediate personal gains or losses, but rather about establishing communication where both parties can make small contributions that benefit each other in the future. In short, the focus is on others and the potential future, not just on short-term wins or losses.

Writing up to this point, it seems that separate satisfaction resembles investment, while equivalent satisfaction is more akin to immediate settlement of relationships, leaning towards consumption. Both have their pros and cons, but even aside from the natural tendency for people to prefer working with those who seek separate satisfaction, this strategy is a better choice for expanding and strengthening one’s own abilities. It also constitutes a stronger system when facing future challenges.

Even if we cannot fully achieve it right now, we should gradually move closer to this approach.

Upon first encountering the term “separate satisfaction,” the concept that immediately comes to mind is the idea that “human needs are multi-layered.” To put it extremely, both the rich and the poor are still human beings, but one seeks entertainment while the other seeks money. Their needs are clearly incompatible. If we consider people from different social standings or situations, their needs become even more complex and diverse. This naturally leads us to think of strategies for identifying needs and tackling them separately.

Of course, the author’s meaning likely extends beyond this.

When it comes to the difference between the two concepts, the primary distinction seems to lie in the focus.

As the author states, those seeking equivalent satisfaction are focused on the value of what they give, comparing it with the value of what they receive from others. The judgments made in the process are all subjective, and the focus throughout remains on oneself.

This isn’t to suggest that selfishness is inherently wrong; it’s simply that with a broader perspective, one can see greater benefits from larger self-interest, offering better value. If, along the way, one can alleviate the pain of others, it might add some meaning to the process.

On the other hand, separate satisfaction differs because it requires us to see and understand the needs of others. It encourages us to consider and reflect on the circumstances and issues faced by both ourselves and others. This involves not only a multi-layered observation of others but also a multi-layered challenge to our own selves. It’s not about immediate personal gains or losses, but rather about establishing communication where both parties can make small contributions that benefit each other in the future. In short, the focus is on others and the potential future, not just on short-term wins or losses.

Writing up to this point, it seems that separate satisfaction resembles investment, while equivalent satisfaction is more akin to immediate settlement of relationships, leaning towards consumption. Both have their pros and cons, but even aside from the natural tendency for people to prefer working with those who seek separate satisfaction, this strategy is a better choice for expanding and strengthening one’s own abilities. It also constitutes a stronger system when facing future challenges.

Even if we cannot fully achieve it right now, we should gradually move closer to this approach.