[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] please unsubscribe me from listserv
Julia Eksner, Ph.D.
Free University of Berlin
Faculty of Political and Social Sciences
Department of Anthropology
On 9 Aug 2013, at 15:29, Huw Lloyd wrote:
On 9 August 2013 02:03, Andy Blunden <email@example.com> wrote:
> Integral yes. But as ANL himself points out *human* needs are themseleves
> *products* of human acitivity. People only need hammers because someone has
> produced nails. In circular processes like this, the question is: what
> concept is fundamental? Cf Dewey on the reflex arc.
Are needs produced? Or is this simply different objects to fashion new
motives that address the need? i.e. social change could expose new needs,
but that's not the same as creating them.
And why is fundamental necessary? Do you mean what came (comes) first?
> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>> Re theory of human needs, needs seem fairly integral to studying activity
>> developmentally, no?