Paul,
Just wanted to add to my previous message that I basically agree with you
when you say
> I have been asking myself, if activity is "object-related", how can it be
> that Leont'ev constantly says that "object relatedness" is inseparable from
> the very concept of activity itself? Doesn't this force us to conclude
>that
> Leont'ev felt the need to be redundant as though he though his readers
>would
> forget what he had previously and repeatedly stated.
I think, you are right, that is exactly why Leontiev felt the need to be
redundant. However, in case of activity this redundancy perhaps makes some
sense. In particular, it implicitly addresses questions like "how about
purely internal activities that apparently do not make any impact on
objects in the world?" Leontiev had to deal with such questions because he
contrasted his approach to other approaches in psychology.
Best wishes,
Victor
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:29 PST