Maybe one can fulfill personal needs for the sake of the value of life—for example, eating in order to live and be healthy, or caring for mental well-being so as not to develop emotional disorders.

Rabbi Akiva taught and lived by the verse, “and your brother shall live with you” — your life takes precedence over your fellow’s life. Ahad Ha’am wrote: “The moral teaching of the Gospel sees before it the individual person in his concrete image, with his natural relation to himself and to others, and it seeks to reverse this relation and turn personal life from the ‘I’ to the ‘other,’ from ‘egoism’ directly to reversed ‘egoism.’ For in truth evangelical ‘altruism’ is essentially nothing but reversed ‘egoism,’ since it too denies a person objective moral worth in and of himself and makes him a means to a subjective end. The difference is only that ‘egoism’ makes the ‘other’ a means for the benefit of the ‘I,’ whereas ‘altruism’ makes the ‘I’ a means for the benefit of the ‘other.’ Judaism, however, removed the subjective relation from moral teaching and established it on an abstract objective basis—absolute justice, which sees the human being as an intrinsic moral value, with no distinction between ‘I’ and ‘other.’ According to this outlook, the feeling of justice in a person’s heart is the supreme judge of his own actions and of the actions of others alike. This feeling must free itself from personal relations, as though it were a creature unto itself, and all human beings, including the ‘I,’ must be equal before it. All of them, including the ‘I,’ are obligated to develop their lives and powers as far as their ability reaches, and all are likewise obligated to help one another achieve this goal, according to their ability. And just as I have no right to destroy another’s life for the sake of my own life, so too I have no right to destroy my own life for the sake of another’s life. For we are both human beings, and both our lives have equal value before the throne of justice.”

Meiri wrote that a person must constantly strive concerning the law of his soul, and concerning the needs of his body only as necessary—and even that with the intention that his ultimate aim be the perfection of the soul. That is, concern for the needs of the imagined ‘I’ is egoism. Concern for the needs of the true self is a person’s responsibility toward himself (“If I am not for myself, who will be for me?”). The distinction between the true self—what you really are—and the imagined ‘I’—what seems to you to be yours but is not really yours—is the work of purification and sanctification.

M80,
So according to Meiri, there is no value in cultivating health for its own sake, only as a means of achieving another value.

According to Meiri, dealing with bodily needs alone, without seeing in that the service of God and the perfection of the soul, is only partial cultivation of health, whereas cultivating true and complete health attends to the purpose for which man was created.

It seems to me that my point needs to be sharpened. Obviously there is value in preserving life. After all, it says, “and live by them,” and that is also simple logic. And the same applies to preserving health. But a person who engages in this is not necessarily worthy of appreciation, because he is pursuing his own interest. If a person does not want this and does it only for the sake of the commandment involved, then of course he is worthy of appreciation, also in the moral sense. As for cultivating the body and attending to needs—that is already less of a value even in itself, and beyond that, here too one must distinguish according to the motivations behind engaging in it.

Michi,

Even in caring for others there is an interest; a person has an interest in feeling good about himself, and therefore he cares for others.

I already dealt with that in the columns on altruistic acts. Take it from there.