I was watching Casanova today (the BBC production written by Russell T. Davies, starring David Tennant) and it brought up a point that I have often thought about. It basically stated that it was better to have loved and lost than never loved at all; better to strive for a need and never reach it than have everything you need with nothing to live for.
As someone who has loved, fully and completely, with nothing in return, I know that I felt more alive then than I have in the rest of my life. In fairness I never lost (or in my mind I didn't) as we stayed amazing friends, and still are, never becoming more than that. So I would definitely agree with the first statement - loving is better than not loving, even when the second option is the safer one.
The second statement poses a problem for me as I've never needed anything. I barely even want anything - instead I create needs and wants that are fake and unreal. Though I always know that they are fake so it doesn't really work. I've often felt that I have no reason to keep going, day by day, as I don't NEED or WANT anything - I have nothing to run after. So I guess I would agree with the second statement as I know how hollow this kind of living is - all I need is something to want/need and so I will keep searching for it and hope that this searching is enough to propell me forward.