Paul,
I am a bit puzzled with your answers to Charles. Could you please help me
clarify one thing?
>Given that the subject is transitional, it still begins as an individual,
>so at the time of the first individual changing his/her object, isn't
>there then an individual activity?
>
> Answer 1. No because all activity is social which is what
>distinguishes it >from the actions of the individual antelope or zebra
>or other such animal that, being a member of a herd/community (origin
>of Gattungwesen??), does not act through the mediation of tools. All
>tool use is learned hence all activity, involving tools, is essentially
>social
It apears you (and Yrjo) claim that human activities are not individual
because they are always social. However, human actions and operations are
social, too. It surely means they are not individual, either, right?
Then where does the distinction between collective activities and
individual actions come from? ("We may well speak of the activity of the
individual, but never of individual activity; only actions are
individual.")
Thank you!
Best wishes,
Victor
PS I have just joined the discussion and have not traced it to the
beginning yet, so if this issue has already been resolved, well, I am
sorry...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:47 PDT